Re: 2nd RFD: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
Peter J Ross
L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
<...>
> If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
> issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
> announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
> include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
> header.
The instructions for posting announcements probably belong in the
Charter, not the Rationale.
Otherwise, my only remaining objection is that there's still no
convincing evidence that the new newsgroup would be used enough to
justify its existence.
<...>
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross
L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
<...>
> DISTRIBUTION:
> This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.groups.proposals
> news.groups
> comp.lang.lisp
> comp.lang.scheme
This section is superfluous when accurate, but this time it's untrue.
The article was not posted to news.groups.
<...>
> CHANGE HISTORY:
> {2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
> {2009-03-06 1st RFD}
> {2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
The 1st RFD was not posted on 06 March.
Has Timmy been tinkering again?
Aatu Koskensilta
> Otherwise, my only remaining objection is that there's still no
> convincing evidence that the new newsgroup would be used enough to
> justify its existence.
Right, comp.lang.lisp is perfectly suitable for newLISP chatter, and
is indeed being used for that purpose to a small extent.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> In news.announce.newgroups on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:55:04 EDT, Benjamin
> L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
> <...>
>
>> If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>> issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>> announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
>> include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
>> header.
>
> The instructions for posting announcements probably belong in the
> Charter, not the Rationale.
>
> Otherwise, my only remaining objection is that there's still no
> convincing evidence that the new newsgroup would be used enough to
> justify its existence.
Well if a newsgroup for clojure has been rejected two weeks ago, I
don't think there's more rational for a newsgroup for newLisp anyways.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
Kojak
Benjamin L.Russell a écrit :
> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
> [...]
Why not testing in CLC your assumption concerning the potential
number of posters and the relevance of CLC and newlisp split-up?
If necessary, it will always be time to review your request on
a sounder basis. No ?
My 2¢,
--
Jacques.
Brian Mailman
> In news.announce.newgroups on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:55:04 EDT, Benjamin
> L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group
>> comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
> <...>
>
>> If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>> issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>> announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>> should include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the
>> subject header.
>
> The instructions for posting announcements probably belong in the
> Charter, not the Rationale.
You missed this:
"Interested in discussing an issue involving the newLISP programming
language, I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss
topics and issues related to newLISP, but to no avail."
With something like 80,000 group, there's ALWAYS a place to discuss
something. If there wasn't a group where newLISP could be discussed
there'd be no need for a Distribution list, other than news.groups.
If the proponent intended to mean, "there's few, if any, messages on
Usenet," though, that's a different matter. that would indicate:
> ...that there's still no convincing evidence that the new newsgroup
> would be used enough to justify its existence.
B/
Adam H. Kerman
should have discussed splitting out newLISP discussion among the Usenet
LISP community prior to starting the RFD process.
It is crossposted to news.groups and not news.groups.proposals because
there is no valid reason messages to the unmoderated LISP group should
be subject to moderation.
Benjamin L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.lisp.newlisp.
I take it when I requested that you suspend this RFD until discussion
was thoroughly hashed out in comp.lang.lisp, and you stated that you
agreed to it, you weren't being sincere.
That is most unfortunate.
There is nearly no discussion of newLISP on Usenet. You yourself are not
known for discussing the topic, although I do note that you started a
thread the other day. Several users of the Web forum stated that they
didn't want to post to Usenet.
Who is this newsgroup for?
The LISP community on Usenet is in comp.lang.lisp. Should newLISP become
a popular topic of discussion among the Usenet LISP community, I would
expect the discussion to take place in that group.
But unless and until there is significant discussion of newLISP taking
place on Usenet, the group you propose won't be useful.
>NEWSGROUPS LINE:
>For your newsgroups file:
>comp.lang.lisp.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
>RATIONALE: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>Interested in discussing an issue involving the newLISP programming
>language, I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss
>topics and issues related to newLISP, but to no avail.
This isn't a truthful RATIONALE, given that comp.lang.lisp is the ideal
newsgroup to use to discuss newLISP.
You're still using the existence of the Web boards as rationale for a
Usenet newsgroup, but they are still irrelevant.
>Comp.lang.lisp covers Lisp dialects of all sorts, but has a rather
>Common Lisp-oriented focus.
That does not prevent you from starting threads discussing newLISP. In
fact, the one time you started a thread, it got PLENTY of discussion.
>Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the Scheme programming language,
You didn't crosspost either RFD to this newsgroup.
>If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
>include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
>header.
This doesn't belong in RATIONALE.
>CHARTER:
>comp.lang.lisp.newlisp is an unmoderated group for the discussion
>of topics and issues related to the newLISP programming language.
>Topics include programming language theory, functional programming,
>multimedia programming, formal semantics, syntax, and any other topics
>related to the newLISP programming language.
In programming, is there a technical difference between semantics and
syntax? I'm not a programmer, so I don't know.
>Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
>and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
>suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
Don't put cute statement in boilerplate, please.
1) Do not ban spam on a per-newsgroup basis. If you see spam on your
News server, it's not because it's allowed in the groups you use. It's
because the server doesn't implement countermeasures, which affect ALL
newsgroups, not just groups with spam bans in charters.
2) State, plainly, that binaries are banned. It's that simple.
3) Direct advertising has no definition, so don't say that. A few
servers have TOS/AUP banning advertisement, so sometimes an advertising
ban may be enforceable, but not if you make up terms.
>DISTRIBUTION:
>This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.groups.proposals
> news.groups
> comp.lang.lisp
> comp.lang.scheme
Couldn't you proofread something as critical as the distribution? You
failed to crosspost to two of those newsgroups.
>CHANGE HISTORY:
>{2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
>{2009-03-06 1st RFD}
>{2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
And that's the second time you've misstated the change history. The
dates are wrong. You copied a comment about the revision history of the
boilerplate itself, sheesh.
Kindly do not submit another RFD till you have someone else
proofread it for critical errors.
Kathy Morgan
> In news.announce.newgroups on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:55:04 EDT, Benjamin
> L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > CHANGE HISTORY:
> > {2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
> > {2009-03-06 1st RFD}
> > {2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
>
> The 1st RFD was not posted on 06 March.
I don't remember for sure, but I believe that may have been the date the
proponent first attempted to post the 1st RFD. I rejected it and made
him revise it to include crossposts to potentially affected groups, so
that created a few days delay before it actually was posted.
--
Kathy
Kenneth Tilton
...
> Benjamin L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>> Comp.lang.lisp covers Lisp dialects of all sorts, but has a rather
>> Common Lisp-oriented focus.
>
> That does not prevent you from starting threads discussing newLISP. In
> fact, the one time you started a thread, it got PLENTY of discussion.
We also have massive threads from time to time on Clojure, Qi, and
F-Flat. Otoh, in the applicant's defense the only discussion here of
newLISP is how bad it is, so I can't blame them for seeking refuge
elsewhere.
OK, look, while I have you, the two people regularly posting to my
mailing list are feeling a bit cramped. Time for comp.constraints.cells?
kenny
Adam H. Kerman
typical nature of proposal discsussion, as affected by use of a
moderated newsgroup.
>><...>
I made similar points, attempting to post twice to news.groups.proposals.
Can one of the news.groups.proposals moderators identify the word
or sentence in either of my messages that was neither congenial nor
constructive?
Is it incongenial and unconstructive to point out that the
news.announce.newgroups moderators committed errors when two RFDs by
the same proponent were approved, even though they misstated facts about
their change history and the groups they were crossposted to?
The Usenet community is left to wonder why there are two documents, both
of which state they are 2nd RFD, while 1st RFD from March 6 was never
approved for posting to Usenet.
I believe I am owed an apology, and I believe the Usenet community is
owed an on-the-record clarification of exactly where we are in the
process, and which documents are First and Second RFDs.
Is it now clear to the proponent what's wrong with moderated proposal
discussion? Peter demonstrates that the unmoderated proposal discussion
group, news.groups, can be used to bring problems with RFDs to the Big 8
Management Board's attention. I demonstrate that when I attempt to raise
these critical issues in the moderated proposal discussion group, my two
messages are censored.
=====Forwarded message==============
Message-ID: <200903122017....@jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us>
To: a...@chinet.com
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
From: dev...@ngp.big-8.org
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400
news.groups.proposals was established to provide a congenial and
constructive place for discussion of new groups or changes to the
group list. Your submission has been rejected because it is not
consistent with this goal.
Content that is not conducive to the development of a proposal is
disallowed, including personal attacks, derogatory nicknames,
repetitive arguments, and flames.
You may wish to tone down your language and resubmit. You can read
the charter of news.groups.proposals at <http://www.big-8.org/~ngp/>.
Please direct your queries to ngp-...@ngp.big-8.org.
Thank you,
- Moderator.
============================================ Full text of your message follows
> From ne...@schnuerpel.eu Thu Mar 12 16:00:23 2009
> Return-Path: <ne...@schnuerpel.eu>
> Received: from pinatubo.switch.ch (pinatubo-2.switch.ch [130.59.1.10])
> by jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CK0MXW025778
> for <n...@ngp.big-8.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:00:23 -0400
> Received: from [78.47.18.35] (helo=schnuerpel.eu)
> by pinatubo.switch.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
> (envelope-from <ne...@schnuerpel.eu>)
> id 1Lhr4n-0007UU-Ry
> for news-group...@moderators.isc.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:00:21 +0100
> Received: by schnuerpel.eu (Postfix, from userid 9)
> id 906CD3427E00; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:00:19 +0100 (CET)
> To: news-group...@moderators.isc.org
> From: "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
> Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals
> Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
> Organization: albasani.net
> Message-ID: <gpbpki$s0h$2...@news.albasani.net>
> References: <95lhr4daphc6ppk5c...@4ax.com> <fOmdneadyI0AYCXU...@supernews.com>
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net LEPtpPu5gS+P1HoQyRVwN1dJbxdFtQHf4QV4u/kJHgAtYxx6NSGED+de0ve0gVcJlhIsXY5MotqmVvkwm88knPNH7gvS6uTy/AM7CpdEwA4zT55eDnt335XPjvH8n3Q4
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@albasani.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:00:19 +0000 (UTC)
> X-User-ID: I/tlYZefXSRpROvZSRD3BwUg5Umg6OqQr78XnwQp7V8=
> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:qhkuOdlo7PDTInLTjDsJ27HffbM=
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: /tStPWqOeTts1MTcYrscD7X0PeRPiFZO9U/BeaV4ixI=
>
> Martin X. Moleski, SJ <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
> >Benjamin L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Marty, do not reply to me in email. Reply only on Usenet.
>
> >>DISTRIBUTION:
> >>This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> >> news.groups.proposals
> >> news.groups
> >> comp.lang.lisp
> >> comp.lang.scheme
>
> >I approved the 2nd RFD even though this is not true.
> >You have made some good changes in it in response
> >to questions people have raised.
>
> >The actual distribution of the 2nd RFD was to:
>
> >news.announce.newgroups
> >news.groups.proposals
> >comp.lang.lisp
>
> If the RFD isn't accurate, you should have required the proponent to
> resubmit it.
>
> >Lastly, you should use the change history to actually
> >make notes about what changes were made. The notes
> >should not be in {braces like these} and should not
> >include the date of the boilerplate. So:
>
> >CHANGE HISTORY:
> >2009-03-06 Proposed creation of comp.lang.newlisp.
> >2009-03-12 Changed name to comp.lang.lisp.newlisp;
> > revised newsgroups line.
>
> I saw an RFD that stated in the Change History in the message that it
> was second RFD. Can you state, for the record, that it was actually
> First RFD? I saw nothing posted to Usenet on the stated date of March 6.
>
> How about requiring the proponent to post the RFD with accurate change
> history? Get him to post a revised 2nd RFd that's accurate this time.
Kazimir Majorinc
(1) There is little discussion on Newlisp on Usenet;
- mostly comparison with other Lisp dialects and
comp.lang.lisp is probably better for that.
(2) Newlisp users use existing web forum and have
no interest in splitting the communication. Only much
larger groups can benefit from such splitting.
(3) There is not too much traffic on comp.lang.lisp.
Actually, it is in significant decline for last three years
consecutively[1].
(4) Russell didn't discussed Newlisp prior to RFD,
neither on Usenet nor on web forum. With more experience,
he might easily change his opinion or conclude that Newlisp
doesn't interest him on the first place.
[1]http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/02/decline-of-lisp-usenet.html
--
Kenneth Tilton
> (3) There is not too much traffic on comp.lang.lisp.
> Actually, it is in significant decline for last three years
> consecutively[1].
Name another language that can decline for three straight years after
having been dead for fifteen.
Meanwhile, you have a web site with a chart of usenet statistics on a
language you do not like? I thought /I/ had no life...thx!
kt
Benjamin L.Russell
news.groups.proposals]
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:24:40 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Note: This is being crossposted to comp.lang.lisp as the proponent
>should have discussed splitting out newLISP discussion among the Usenet
>LISP community prior to starting the RFD process.
>
>It is crossposted to news.groups and not news.groups.proposals because
>there is no valid reason messages to the unmoderated LISP group should
>be subject to moderation.
>
>Benjamin L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
>>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.lisp.newlisp.
>
>I take it when I requested that you suspend this RFD until discussion
>was thoroughly hashed out in comp.lang.lisp, and you stated that you
>agreed to it, you weren't being sincere.
>
>That is most unfortunate.
I received a message from an administrative member of
news.groups.proposals noting that you had redirected the thread from
news.groups.proposals to news.groups (being new to creating a
newsgroup, I had thought that the same people read both news.groups
and news.groups.proposals, and hadn't realized the significance of the
difference at first), and that while the board member felt obligated
to read news.groups.proposals, that person didn't feel obligated to
read news.groups.
Therefore, I promised to try to move the discussion back to
news.groups.proposals, but then discovered that so many messages had
been posted to the first RFD on news.groups and comp.lang.lisp that
that was, by then, impossible with that RFD.
Since a number of people had pointed out areas of improvement for the
first RFD, I then thought to kill two birds with one stone by
submitting a revised RFD as a second RFD. This main purpose was to
try to satisfy the administrators by trying to move the discussion
back to news.groups.proposals.
Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's? It's impossible to keep you and
the administrators happy at the same time. If I satisfy you, then
they say something about it, and if I satisfy them, then you say
something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
>>Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the Scheme programming language,
>
>You didn't crosspost either RFD to this newsgroup.
This is not true. I posted the first RFD to comp.lang.scheme as well
on March 10, 2009, at 12:18 PM (see
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/browse_thread/thread/f6c5066346672b00#).
>>If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>>issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>>announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
>>include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
>>header.
>
>This doesn't belong in RATIONALE.
IIRC, I put it in RATIONALE because the boilerplate I had copied it
from originally had it in RATIONALE.
>>CHARTER:
>>comp.lang.lisp.newlisp is an unmoderated group for the discussion
>>of topics and issues related to the newLISP programming language.
>>Topics include programming language theory, functional programming,
>>multimedia programming, formal semantics, syntax, and any other topics
>>related to the newLISP programming language.
>
>In programming, is there a technical difference between semantics and
>syntax? I'm not a programmer, so I don't know.
Of course there is. Syntax tells us about how a code fragment is
written; semantics tells us about how it behaves. According to the
textbook _Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation_ (see
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/2007-04-26/),
by Shriram Krishnamurthi, quoted from pages 3 to 4:
>Virtually every language consists of
>
>. a peculiar syntax,
>
>. some behavior associated with each syntax,
>
>. numerous useful libraries, and
>
>. a collection of idioms that programmers of that language use.
>
>[...]
>
>The first insignificant attribute is the syntax. Syntaxes are highly sensitive topics,
>but in the end, they don_$B!G_(Bt tell us very much about a program_$B!G_(Bs behavior.
>
>[...]
>
> [W]e will focus on the behavior associated with syntax, namely the semantics
>of programming languages. In popular culture, people like to say _$B!H_(BIt_$B!G_(Bs just semantics!_$B!I_(B, which is a kind of
>put-down: it implies that their correspondent is quibbling over minor details of meaning in a jesuitical way.
>But communication is all about meaning: even if you and I use different words to mean the same thing, we
>understand one another; but if we use the same word to mean different things, great confusion results. In
>this study, therefore, we will wear the phrase _$B!H_(BIt_$B!G_(Bs just semantics!_$B!I_(B as a badge of honor, because semantics
>leads to discourse which (we hope) leads to civilization.
> Just semantics. That_$B!G_(Bs all there is.
That is the distinction.
>>Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
>>and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
>>suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
>
>Don't put cute statement in boilerplate, please.
I didn't add it there; it was there from the original boilerplate.
>1) Do not ban spam on a per-newsgroup basis. If you see spam on your
>News server, it's not because it's allowed in the groups you use. It's
>because the server doesn't implement countermeasures, which affect ALL
>newsgroups, not just groups with spam bans in charters.
>
>2) State, plainly, that binaries are banned. It's that simple.
>
>3) Direct advertising has no definition, so don't say that. A few
>servers have TOS/AUP banning advertisement, so sometimes an advertising
>ban may be enforceable, but not if you make up terms.
How about the following alternative statement:
>Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
>and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. Binaries are prohibited.
>Meta-discussion of this newsgroup within this newsgroup is discouraged;
>post meta-discussion threads in a meta-newsgroup. Meta-discussion of what
>discussion belongs in this newsgroup, and what discussion does not, is
>discouraged; the point of this newsgroup is to discuss issues related to the
>newLISP programming langauge, not to discuss what discussion belongs in this
>newsgroup; post thread of meta-discussion of discussion in a meta-discussion of
>discussion-level-specific newsgroup. Meta-discussion of any of the above, or
>meta-discussion of such meta-discussion, or meta-discussion of meta-discussion
>of such meta-discussion, and so forth, is prohibited; post any of the above in
>the appropriate meta-discussion-level-specific newsgroup. Meta-discussion of
>this paragraph is prohibited.
>>DISTRIBUTION:
>>This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>>
>> news.groups.proposals
>> news.groups
>> comp.lang.lisp
>> comp.lang.scheme
>
>Couldn't you proofread something as critical as the distribution? You
>failed to crosspost to two of those newsgroups.
Sorry about that. There was a problem with the NNTP servers, which
refused to post a message with too many recipients (I had also been
BCC'ing myself to four different e-mail accounts, and apparently, the
combination of several newsgroups and several e-mail addresses caused
my post to be rejected). I then reduced the list, and resent the
post, forgetting that I needed to change this portion as well. The
next time I send out any RFD, I'll double-check this portion.
>>CHANGE HISTORY:
>>{2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
>>{2009-03-06 1st RFD}
>>{2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
>
>And that's the second time you've misstated the change history. The
>dates are wrong. You copied a comment about the revision history of the
>boilerplate itself, sheesh.
The dates reflect when the RFD's were initially submitted, not when
they were actually posted. Both of the RFD's were initially rejected
before they were reposted and accepted. By then, the dates had become
unsynchronized.
Again, I probably should have double-checked this portion after my
initial RFD's were rejected and then resubmitted. Sorry about the
confusion again; I'll be sure to double-check this portion the next
time I submit any RFD.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
Miles Bader
> Well if a newsgroup for clojure has been rejected two weeks ago, I
> don't think there's more rational for a newsgroup for newLisp anyways.
Not to mention the lack of a dedicated common-lisp group. It would seem
very silly to have dedicated groups for minor dialects but not for the
major ones.
[If the newlisp people feel drowned out by common-lisp discussion,
perhaps the right solution would actually be propose a group for CL....]
-Miles
--
Mayonnaise, n. One of the sauces that serve the French in place of a state
religion.
Peter J Ross
<DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> [news.groups.proposals added to Newsgroups line and f'ups directed to
> news.groups.proposals]
Please don't do that. You can see for yourself where most of the
useful discussion of RFDs takes place, and it isn't
news.groups.proposals.
Nothing is stopping the hierarchy managers from reading and posting to
news.groups. Most of them in fact do so. Jeremy Nixon made a pertinent
comment in the 1st RFD thread that hasn't appeared in NGP at all.
<...>
> Since a number of people had pointed out areas of improvement for the
> first RFD, I then thought to kill two birds with one stone by
> submitting a revised RFD as a second RFD. This main purpose was to
> try to satisfy the administrators by trying to move the discussion
> back to news.groups.proposals.
It hasn't worked, and won't work.
> Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
> newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's?
It's a very long story.
> It's impossible to keep you and
> the administrators happy at the same time. If I satisfy you, then
> they say something about it, and if I satisfy them, then you say
> something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
It's a pity that you've been put in that position. There's only one
solution to such problems, and that's for news.groups.proposals to be
shut down. (Moderated groups *can* be shut down; unmoderated ones
can't.)
>>>Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the Scheme programming language,
>>
>>You didn't crosspost either RFD to this newsgroup.
>
> This is not true. I posted the first RFD to comp.lang.scheme as well
> on March 10, 2009, at 12:18 PM (see
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/browse_thread/thread/f6c5066346672b00#).
>
>>>If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>>>issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>>>announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
>>>include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
>>>header.
>>
>>This doesn't belong in RATIONALE.
>
> IIRC, I put it in RATIONALE because the boilerplate I had copied it
> from originally had it in RATIONALE.
At present, nobody is quite sure which parts of an RFD were written by
the proponent and which originated as boilerplate, which results in
proponents being blamed for other people's mistakes.
Perhaps somebody will post the boilerplate so we can suggest
improvements to it.
<...>
Peter J Ross
<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
The proponent has confirmed this. On this occasion, the mistake was
the proponent's.
Whatever happened to the idea of simplifying RFDs and the RFD process?
The "Distribution" and "Change History" parts of RFDs convey little or
no useful information, and are only of interest when they're wrong.
(Of course the single biggest contribution you could make to
simplifying the RFD process would be to shut down
news.groups.proposals, so it seems that simplification is no longer a
Bamby goal.)
Dave Sill
>
> Since a number of people had pointed out areas of improvement for the
> first RFD, I then thought to kill two birds with one stone by
> submitting a revised RFD as a second RFD. This main purpose was to
> try to satisfy the administrators by trying to move the discussion
> back to news.groups.proposals.
The B8MB never asked you to move the discussion back to news.groups.
> Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
> newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's? It's impossible to keep you and
> the administrators happy at the same time. If I satisfy you, then
> they say something about it, and if I satisfy them, then you say
> something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
Nobody has flamed you for not discussing the proposal in NGP. All we've
said is that it's possible for us to miss discussion that takes place in
news.groups because some of us use killfiles there. All that's required
of you is to follow the discussion in NGP. If you choose to follow it in
NG as well, that's great, but "satisfying" news.groupies isn't part of
the process.
The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as I'm
concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15 people
posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think I've seen
two. That translates to a NO vote.
-Dave
Peter J Ross
<da...@sill.org> wrote:
> Benjamin L.Russell wrote:
>>
>> Since a number of people had pointed out areas of improvement for the
>> first RFD, I then thought to kill two birds with one stone by
>> submitting a revised RFD as a second RFD. This main purpose was to
>> try to satisfy the administrators by trying to move the discussion
>> back to news.groups.proposals.
>
> The B8MB never asked you to move the discussion back to news.groups.
I assume you mean news.groups.proposals. It's worth noting in passing
that it would have been impossible to move discussion "back" to
news.groups.proposals, since that's not where the discussion started.
In fact (and as usual) there has been little or no discussion in
news.groups.proposals that doesn't merely duplicate previous
discussion from news.groups.
>> Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
>> newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's? It's impossible to keep you and
>> the administrators happy at the same time. If I satisfy you, then
>> they say something about it, and if I satisfy them, then you say
>> something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
>
> Nobody has flamed you for not discussing the proposal in NGP. All we've
> said is that it's possible for us to miss discussion that takes place in
> news.groups because some of us use killfiles there.
Your inability to use killfiles sensibly is the fault of neither the
proponent nor news.groups.
> All that's required
> of you is to follow the discussion in NGP. If you choose to follow it in
> NG as well, that's great, but "satisfying" news.groupies isn't part of
> the process.
Why is improving the proposal not part of the process?
You know as well as I do where suggestions for improving proposals are
most likely to be found.
> The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as I'm
> concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15 people
> posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think I've seen
> two. That translates to a NO vote.
You've used this criterion in the past, without any noticeably good
results. People on Usenet *lie*, especially when all they have to do
is post "me too" when asked nicely to. The only way of establishing a
reasonable expectation of future Usenet discussion is by analysing
existing Usenet discussion.
Of course, the proponent doesn't have to "satisfy" me, but I think he
ought to satisfy himself, and I don't think he'll find a dead-on-
arrival newsgroup satisfying, however many hierarchy managers vote YES
to newgrouping it.
Peter J Ross
<p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In fact (and as usual) there has been little or no discussion in
> news.groups.proposals that doesn't merely duplicate previous
> discussion from news.groups.
After reading the discussion of both RFDs in news.groups.proposal, and
setting aside stuff about how wonderful NGP is or isn't, stuff that
was acknowledged to be copied from news.groups, and stuff about how a
certain NAN moderator approves messages that he knows are b0rked, I'm
left with two meaningful statements:
1. The proponent intends to look for potential users of the new group.
2. Dr. Brian Leverich would read the new group.
So is it not time for the B8MB to abandon their failed experiment,
close down NGP, and participate in meaningful discussion of RFDs where
the meaningful discussion is actually posted?
Adam H. Kerman
>>Well if a newsgroup for clojure has been rejected two weeks ago, I
>>don't think there's more rational for a newsgroup for newLisp anyways.
>Not to mention the lack of a dedicated common-lisp group. It would seem
>very silly to have dedicated groups for minor dialects but not for the
>major ones.
>[If the newlisp people feel drowned out by common-lisp discussion,
>perhaps the right solution would actually be propose a group for CL....]
Of course, it's unethical for someone not discussing a topic on Usenet
to propose a group to discuss the topic. In any event, a group for
common LISP was just proposed weeks ago, and rejected by the LISP
community on Usenet.
Adam H. Kerman
>on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:17:03 -0900, Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>Benjamin L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> <...>
>>>> CHANGE HISTORY:
>>>> {2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
>>>> {2009-03-06 1st RFD}
>>>> {2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
>>>The 1st RFD was not posted on 06 March.
>>I don't remember for sure, but I believe that may have been the date the
>>proponent first attempted to post the 1st RFD. I rejected it and made
>>him revise it to include crossposts to potentially affected groups, so
>>that created a few days delay before it actually was posted.
>The proponent has confirmed this. On this occasion, the mistake was
>the proponent's.
Of course proponents make mistakes. The moderator who approved the two
RFDs made a bigger mistake by not requesting that the proponent deal
with this matter.
No, Marty, you're wrong. It is a really big deal to mislead the Usenet
community about where we are in the RFD process. A 1st RFD MUST NOT
state that it's a 2nd RFD.
>Whatever happened to the idea of simplifying RFDs and the RFD process?
>The "Distribution" and "Change History" parts of RFDs convey little or
>no useful information, and are only of interest when they're wrong.
In this case, it proved to be critical.
The real problem is the rest of the boilerplate.
Brian Mailman
Benjamin L.Russell wrote:
> I received a message from an administrative member of
> news.groups.proposals noting that you had redirected the thread from
> news.groups.proposals to news.groups
I bet it was either the Sill Component of the Timas Silleeski Unit or
the Morgan wannabe (but neverwillbe).
Yes, it's great for doing things "privately" in email.
That should be a hint about how the process really works and how you'll
treated when you cease to be useful to it.
B/
Brian Mailman
Dave Sill wrote:
> The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as I'm
> concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15 people
> posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think I've seen
> two. That translates to a NO vote.
As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to threaten
their oh-so-famous NO vote.
But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in your
own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
No, really. Their so-called vote is not important (indeed, it's already
been taken, the announcement is just a formality).
B/
Jeremy Nixon
> So is it not time for the B8MB to abandon their failed experiment,
> close down NGP, and participate in meaningful discussion of RFDs where
> the meaningful discussion is actually posted?
The only time I look at news.groups is when (a) a proposal is posted,
(b) I need more information, and (c) I think there may be some information
in news.groups.
If there were no NGP, I'm sure I would actually miss even more stuff in
news.groups because I would read it even more rarely. As it is I do not
read it regularly.
This group is a total mess, dominated by noise, and not very useful.
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board
Kathy Morgan
> p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
> > Well if a newsgroup for clojure has been rejected two weeks ago, I
> > don't think there's more rational for a newsgroup for newLisp anyways.
>
> Not to mention the lack of a dedicated common-lisp group. It would seem
> very silly to have dedicated groups for minor dialects but not for the
> major ones.
What matters is the number of people who want to discuss a topic on
Usenet. If there are many who wish to discuss the minor dialect and few
who want to talk the major ones on Usenet, that would be justification
for creating groups for the minor dialects. So far, it doesn't appear
that their are many who wish to discuss any dialects on Usenet.
> [If the newlisp people feel drowned out by common-lisp discussion,
> perhaps the right solution would actually be propose a group for CL....]
Experience has shown that trying to tell someone else to leave a group
usually doesn't work. People will only leave and use a different
discussion group if that is what they want to do.
--
Kathy
Adam H. Kerman
>>So is it not time for the B8MB to abandon their failed experiment,
>>close down NGP, and participate in meaningful discussion of RFDs where
>>the meaningful discussion is actually posted?
>The only time I look at news.groups is when (a) a proposal is posted,
>(b) I need more information, and (c) I think there may be some information
>in news.groups.
>If there were no NGP, I'm sure I would actually miss even more stuff in
>news.groups because I would read it even more rarely. As it is I do not
>read it regularly.
>This group is a total mess, dominated by noise, and not very useful.
How difficult has it been to find the newLISP RFD discussion by looking
for "newlisp" on Subject?
I find it hard to believe that's beyond your ability.
How difficult is it to ignore threads that are of no interest?
Peter J Ross
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So is it not time for the B8MB to abandon their failed experiment,
>> close down NGP, and participate in meaningful discussion of RFDs where
>> the meaningful discussion is actually posted?
>
> The only time I look at news.groups is when (a) a proposal is posted,
> (b) I need more information, and (c) I think there may be some information
> in news.groups.
I don't think anybody expects you to do more than that.
> If there were no NGP, I'm sure I would actually miss even more stuff in
> news.groups because I would read it even more rarely. As it is I do not
> read it regularly.
>
> This group is a total mess, dominated by noise, and not very useful.
If news.groups, where most of the meaningful discussion of proposals
takes place, isn't very useful, then news.groups.proposals must be
even less useful.
If you object to "noise", filter it.
Jeremy Nixon
> If news.groups, where most of the meaningful discussion of proposals
> takes place, isn't very useful, then news.groups.proposals must be
> even less useful.
If you post something in news.groups.proposals, I will see and read it. If
you post something here, I will probably not see it or read it.
> If you object to "noise", filter it.
Day after day, week after week, of all the crap, and I end up checking less
and less frequently until I'm not looking at the group at all.
Aratzio
<~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> got double secret probation for writing:
>Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If news.groups, where most of the meaningful discussion of proposals
>> takes place, isn't very useful, then news.groups.proposals must be
>> even less useful.
>
>If you post something in news.groups.proposals, I will see and read it. If
>you post something here, I will probably not see it or read it.
>
>> If you object to "noise", filter it.
>
>Day after day, week after week, of all the crap, and I end up checking less
>and less frequently until I'm not looking at the group at all.
Just think if people did that while driving their cars in commute
traffic. There would be fewer for me to run off into the ditch.
Peter J Ross
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If news.groups, where most of the meaningful discussion of proposals
>> takes place, isn't very useful, then news.groups.proposals must be
>> even less useful.
>
> If you post something in news.groups.proposals, I will see and read it. If
> you post something here, I will probably not see it or read it.
THat's your fault, not mine.
But this isn't about you (sing.), because you (sing.) *do* read at
least some of the discussion of proposals in news.groups. The problem
is with you (plur.), and the absurd official policy of not reading RFD
discussion where the discussion actually takes place.
>> If you object to "noise", filter it.
>
> Day after day, week after week, of all the crap, and I end up checking less
> and less frequently until I'm not looking at the group at all.
That's also your fault, not mine. When I want to discuss a topic on
Usenet, I read the group where the topic is discussed, not the group
where I think it *ought* to be discussed. I find it strange that
anybody would choose to do otherwise.
Thomas Lee
L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> writes
>Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
>newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's?
When the Big-8 Management Board was created, we made some changes in the
way newsgroup management was carried out. Sadly, some folks wanted to go
back the old ways and take pretty much every chance to make the point.
Sadly, sometimes they flame the proponent, i.e. you, in some mistaken
belief that they are doing "the right thing".
> It's impossible to keep you and the administrators happy at the same
>time.
You have two important constituencies: the folks who want the new groups
(and on whose behalf you are proposing a new group, and the B8MB who are
the ones who decide for/against the proposal. You are, of course, free
to post and discuss in news.groups but most proponents tend to get a
pretty poor reception there (it seems because some folks flame because
they can).
The place the B8MB looks for the discussion is here, not news.groups.
You are free to post there, but I suspect you will not get a great
reception, as I think you have already discovered. If you want to carry
on the discussions in news.groups, or even just lurk there, feel free.
There are sometimes some good points made there - but don't feel
obliged.
> If I satisfy you, then they say something about it, and if I satisfy
>them, then you say something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
I would sincerely hope that no one is flaming you here and that you get
no flames at all from anyone in the B8MB. You have received advice and
from the mails I've seen that was intended as helpful and definitely not
a flame. As for the abuse in news.groups, many proponents ignore it,
preferring to discuss the proposal rationally in news.groups.proposals
(i.e. here).
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
dvus
> Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as I'm
>> concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15 people
>> posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think I've seen
>> two. That translates to a NO vote.
>
> As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to threaten
> their oh-so-famous NO vote.
>
> But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
>
> I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
> really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in your
> own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt proposals? Why not
just counsel the proponent to propose there?
> No, really. Their so-called vote is not important (indeed, it's already
> been taken, the announcement is just a formality).
Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be a disagreeable
process in the Big-8 that you would advise a proponent to take this sort of
action? While I agree a signed newgroup from the board might not carry the
weight it used to it's still better than starting from scratch as we do in
alt. As it stands, the proposal seems a doomed undertaking in any event, so
your advice wouldn't likely make much of a difference, but it does seem
like a drastic measure just to prove a point.
--
dvus
Brian Mailman
> Translation: all the boilerplate, procedural hoops, wikipedia
> articles, the treehouse, etc., are meaningless. Underneath the layers
> of cruft, the real machinations of the junta take place in private
> email. In essence, the newsgroup "creation" process consists of the
> following steps:
[...]
Basically, yeah, and "junta" is quite loosely the Spanish for "unit."
B/
Brian Mailman
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>> Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as
>>> I'm concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15
>>> people posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think
>>> I've seen two. That translates to a NO vote.
>>
>> As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to
>> threaten their oh-so-famous NO vote.
>>
>> But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
>>
>> I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
>> really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in
>> your own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
>
We all get quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things you
already know. But for the benefit of the onlookers in cll, there's no
difference any more, except that there's a speed bump in the Big8.
>> No, really. Their so-called vote is not important (indeed, it's
>> already been taken, the announcement is just a formality).
>
> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be a
> disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would advise a proponent
> to take this sort of action?
Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret Squirrel? You
know the below, but for the onlookers we'll give you yet another
refresher course:
I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the facts. Which
are:
1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and start
work on getting the group propagated.
B/
Adam H. Kerman
>Benjamin L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> writes
>>If I satisfy you, then they say something about it, and if I satisfy
>>them, then you say something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
>I would sincerely hope that no one is flaming you here and that you get
>no flames at all from anyone in the B8MB. You have received advice and
>from the mails I've seen that was intended as helpful and definitely not
>a flame. As for the abuse in news.groups, many proponents ignore it,
>preferring to discuss the proposal rationally in news.groups.proposals
>(i.e. here).
The proponent has received no abuse in news.groups, merely helpful
advice. That there's no support from either the Usenet LISP community
nor those posting to the Web board that the proponent pointed out
earlier isn't abuse. That several members of the Usenet LISP community
have stated that the existing newsgroup is appropriate for newLISP
discussion is not abuse. That this very same issue came up a few weeks
ago when there was a group proposed for common LISP, then quickly
withdrawn, is valuable advice.
Pointing out to Mr. Russell that Usenet discussion of newLISP is
negligible is not abuse.
Mr. Russell was not flamed, not even once. This has been an extremely
civil discussion.
Peter J Ross
<t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <09rjr496014b214bq...@4ax.com>, Benjamin
> L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> writes
>>Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
>>newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's?
>
> When the Big-8 Management Board was created, we made some changes in the
> way newsgroup management was carried out. Sadly, some folks wanted to go
> back the old ways and take pretty much every chance to make the point.
> Sadly, sometimes they flame the proponent, i.e. you, in some mistaken
> belief that they are doing "the right thing".
Where have I flamed Mr Russell? Where has anybody else flamed him?
Why are you so desperate to exclude RFD discussions from news.groups?
And where were you when Kathy, Marty, Jeremy, Adam and I were helping
the newLISP proponent with his RFD?
Mr Russell and the other readers of comp.lang.lisp can draw their own
conclusions after reading your silly little post.
[trollish xposting fixed]
Adam H. Kerman
>Brian Mailman wrote:
>>Dave Sill wrote:
>>>The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as I'm
>>>concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15 people
>>>posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think I've seen
>>>two. That translates to a NO vote.
>>As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to threaten
>>their oh-so-famous NO vote.
>>But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
>>I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
>>really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in your
>>own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
>How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt proposals? Why not
>just counsel the proponent to propose there?
Sigh. They aren't, dvus. Properly, a proponent has exactly the same
role from one hierarchy to the next. Nothing even close to a majority
of servers that create Big 8 groups process their control messages
automatically. Therefore, the promise of widespread propagation following
the initial newgroup message is false. The Big 8 Board has made itself
irrelevant.
If they don't give a damn about acceptance of their own newgroup
messages, why should anyone else?
The only consideration should be proper group naming based on the names
of groups for related topics.
Is there something I've stated that you have disagreed with at all
during the last several years?
Jeremy Nixon
> But this isn't about you (sing.), because you (sing.) *do* read at
> least some of the discussion of proposals in news.groups. The problem
> is with you (plur.), and the absurd official policy of not reading RFD
> discussion where the discussion actually takes place.
There is no such policy, and you know it.
> That's also your fault, not mine. When I want to discuss a topic on
> Usenet, I read the group where the topic is discussed, not the group
> where I think it *ought* to be discussed. I find it strange that
> anybody would choose to do otherwise.
Unfortunately, what discussion there is here is dominated by a small
number of assholes and liars. I sometimes choose to wade through it
to find the rare gem where you (for example) say something useful.
I would never advise a proponent to set foot in this group. Some do,
of course, but the experience is generally so unpleasant that I would
not wish it upon anyone. (This time seems to be an exception.) This
group is basically the far-gone lunatic fringe; on the whole it's not
representative of anything that matters, and the views one would get
from reading the group without already knowing what's what would be
worse than useless.
I could not tell a proponent to come here for discussion without
first warning them not to take anything they read here very seriously
without corroboration, and that wouldn't make much sense as a policy.
Aratzio
<~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> got double secret probation for writing:
>Unfortunately, what discussion there is here is dominated by a small
>number of assholes and liars.
We need a lits.
Kathy Morgan
> In news.groups on 14 Mar 2009 16:45:54 GMT, Jeremy Nixon
> <~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>
> > Day after day, week after week, of all the crap, and I end up checking less
> > and less frequently until I'm not looking at the group at all.
>
> That's also your fault, not mine. When I want to discuss a topic on
> Usenet, I read the group where the topic is discussed, not the group
> where I think it *ought* to be discussed. I find it strange that
> anybody would choose to do otherwise.
Ah, but news.groups.proposals is special--it is required by hierarchy
management that one post in ngp if one wants to be certain that the
hierarchy managers see the post. There's no harm in also posting to
news.groups but often also no point in it. I find it strange that
anybody would choose to post in a group where his post is unlikely to be
read. To a large extent, news.groups is to news.groups.proposals as
rec.music.beatles is to rec.music.beatles.moderated.
--
Kathy
Adam H. Kerman
>>But this isn't about you (sing.), because you (sing.) *do* read at
>>least some of the discussion of proposals in news.groups. The problem
>>is with you (plur.), and the absurd official policy of not reading RFD
>>discussion where the discussion actually takes place.
>There is no such policy, and you know it.
You just told us your own personal official policy. There's no point in
this unconvincing denial.
>>That's also your fault, not mine. When I want to discuss a topic on
>>Usenet, I read the group where the topic is discussed, not the group
>>where I think it *ought* to be discussed. I find it strange that
>>anybody would choose to do otherwise.
>Unfortunately, what discussion there is here is dominated by a small
>number of assholes and liars. I sometimes choose to wade through it
>to find the rare gem where you (for example) say something useful.
Oh. My.
I'd like to be the liar this week. Peter, you're the asshole. Let's
trade next week.
Of course, Jeremy, you failed to name your enemies. Doesn't that make
you a liar, and an asshole for general flaming in a configging newsgroup?
Adam H. Kerman
The point would be Good Advice, versus whatever the hell you do. As long
as Bambi doesn't give enough of a damn about miniscule acceptances of
its newgroup messages to do something productive, you are nearly
irrelevant to the process.
Adam H. Kerman
> I'm probably going to vote in favor of it.
I've never been so shocked in my life!
According to Google Groups, this is the worst, the absolute worst
justified proposal under Bambi. 7 mere mentions of the topic on Usenet!
Even the topics of the It's Obvious! groups had a little bit of discussion.
dvus
> dvus <do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Brian Mailman wrote:
>>>Dave Sill wrote:
>
>>>>The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as I'm
>>>>concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15 people
>>>>posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think I've seen
>>>>two. That translates to a NO vote.
>
>>>As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to threaten
>>>their oh-so-famous NO vote.
>
>>>But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
>
>>>I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
>>>really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in your
>>>own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
>
>>How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt proposals? Why not
>>just counsel the proponent to propose there?
>
> Sigh. They aren't, dvus. Properly, a proponent has exactly the same
> role from one hierarchy to the next. Nothing even close to a majority
> of servers that create Big 8 groups process their control messages
> automatically. Therefore, the promise of widespread propagation following
> the initial newgroup message is false. The Big 8 Board has made itself
> irrelevant.
>
> If they don't give a damn about acceptance of their own newgroup
> messages, why should anyone else?
That makes no sense. The PGP key is really all the Board has that gives it
relevance, and it's only use is to sign control messages to facilitate
their acceptance. If what you say were true they'd just throw the key away
and be done with it. You might opine that they don't use the keys
judiciously and as a result are undermining their own relevance but not
logically that they don't give a damn about acceptance of their controls.
> The only consideration should be proper group naming based on the names
> of groups for related topics.
What about justification?
> Is there something I've stated that you have disagreed with at all
> during the last several years?
Heh, was that a typo? I know that you know we've disagreed often over the
years about the degree of exuberance you display when skewering proponents.
Of course, that was in alt, over here I disagree with almost every sentence
you post because almost every one you direct to a "squirrel" as you've
labeled them, is laced with accusations of lying and/or being an asshole.
You simply can't win a civilized debate when you resort to half-truths, ad
hominem and misdirection. Look at PJR's posts, he's as unhappy with the
current situation as you and others but he keeps his complaints and
accusations based on demonstrable facts and the ad hominem to a minimum.
People aren't immediately branded as "Bambi lovers" or whatever the second
they disagree with a negative statement about how things are done and he
keeps a little humor in there for comic relief.
Me, I try to call things as I see 'em. I'm certainly not infallible by a
long shot, but I try not to do more than offer an opinion if I'm not sure
of all the facts. I've disagreed with the Board and said so but that
doesn't seem to be good enough for you and others, either one must be a
sworn enemy of anything the board stands for or one is a traitor to the
cause. That attitude simply *sucks*.
--
dvus
dvus
> dvus wrote:
>> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>> Dave Sill wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as
>>>> I'm concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15
>>>> people posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think
>>>> I've seen two. That translates to a NO vote.
>>>
>>> As I just said, when you cease to be useful.... they like to
>>> threaten their oh-so-famous NO vote.
>>>
>>> But the secret is this--it's not important. Not in the least.
>>>
>>> I don't believe this is a justified group, but if you really really
>>> really really want it, then send the newgroup message yourself, in
>>> your own name and start work on getting the group propagated.
>>
>> How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt proposals?...
>
> We all get quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things you
Are all the folks in "we all" as condescending as you seem to have become?
> already know. But for the benefit of the onlookers in cll, there's no
> difference any more, except that there's a speed bump in the Big8.
>
>>> No, really. Their so-called vote is not important (indeed, it's
>>> already been taken, the announcement is just a formality).
>>
>> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be a
>> disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would advise a proponent
>> to take this sort of action?
>
> Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
> mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret Squirrel? You
> know the below, but for the onlookers we'll give you yet another
> refresher course:
>
> I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the facts. Which
> are:
>
> 1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
In your view. Representing your views as facts to further an agenda at
other's possible expense is bad business. Yes, you may be able to present
facts demonstrating that the Board's control messages are less effective
than previously, but that's certainly not the same as "totally irrelevent".
Had someone else made a statement like that they'd have been branded a
"goddam liar". I'll just say I think you're exaggerating.
> 1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
> creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
> automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
That could be a big difference, depending on the value of "somewhat". Even
a few auto-process servers could start a chain of newgroup acceptance
depending on how the downstream servers process them.
> 2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and start
> work on getting the group propagated.
Do you honestly believe that doing that and starting from scratch is better
for the proponent than having a few servers process the newgroup
automatically? I mean, even one server is better than zero, isn't it?
--
dvus
Aatu Koskensilta
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> writes:
> In message <09rjr496014b214bq...@4ax.com>, Benjamin
> L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> writes
>> Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
>> newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's?
>
> When the Big-8 Management Board was created, we made some changes in
> the way newsgroup management was carried out. Sadly, some folks
> wanted to go back the old ways and take pretty much every chance to
> make the point.
Well, that only applies to Wayne Brown, strictly speaking. Others
critical of the board usually have specific (imaginary or real)
grievances in mind.
> Sadly, sometimes they flame the proponent, i.e. you, in some
> mistaken belief that they are doing "the right thing".
Yes, sometimes people do get flamed on Usenet. It is quite unnecessary
to drag proponents into general Big-8 policy fights. Unless the issue
comes up, the prudent course of action would surely be to simply set
any quarrels aside and just discuss the proposal. Until and unless
news.groups becomes too toxic to bear in context of the particular
proposal in question trying to move the discussion either to
news.groups.proposals or news.groups is bound to involve the proponent
in all sorts of irrelevant fighting. In case of this proposal, I find
Adam's behaviour, and his attempt at defusing the situation by
explicitly asking you set aside any question of where the discussion
should take place, more appropriate than yours.
Now, all this is of course very easy for me to say, since I'm not at
the receiving end of the undying hatred and evil flames of the hordes
of the anti-board (TINAB). Yet, I again futilely suggest you try and
keep your calm.
> As for the abuse in news.groups, many proponents ignore it,
> preferring to discuss the proposal rationally in
> news.groups.proposals (i.e. here).
The proponents will surely use their good sense and best judgement to
arrive at a conclusion as to where they may profitably discuss their
proposals, taking into account the explicit wishes of the board and
their impression of the atmosphere in this or that group. That the
board likes to conduct its business with proponents in
news.groups.proposals is made amply clear in the official policy
statements the proponent has hopefully perused.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aratzio
<aatu.kos...@uta.fi> bloviated:
>
>Well, that only applies to Wayne Brown, strictly speaking. Others
>critical of the board usually have specific (imaginary or real)
>grievances in mind.
>
Specific (real): They suck.
Specific (imaginary): They suck like Bush.
They suck, but are no where near as bad as Bush.
dvus
[snip]
> Now, all this is of course very easy for me to say, since I'm not at
> the receiving end of the undying hatred and evil flames of the hordes
> of the anti-board (TINAB). Yet, I again futilely suggest you try and
> keep your calm.
[snip]
Amen. Whether by design or otherwise, as time passes, news.groups has
become a place where useful proposal discussion *can* actually take place
despite the lack of moderation. I, for one, think proponents will be much
more likely to attempt to brave the tide in here after lurking a while than
they might have in the past, while admitting I never would have predicted
such a thing would ever come to pass. Ironically, it's probable that the
existance of ngp is as responsible for this as anything else.
--
dvus
Son of Serpent Esq
If one is unable to handle a group that is not moderated, then
perhaps they should not be considering creating another? Usenet may
not be the best choice for them. A web forum or mail list might be
more their speed.
Oh, and can someone explain to me what the difference is between a
moderated usenet newsgroup and a mailing list? Please.
Mark Kramer
Not true. It will not get past Bonine or Morgan. One of them will see
it and come up with some twisted interpretation that they'll use as an
excuse to reject it. That's the standard operating procedure.
>If
>you post something here, I will probably not see it or read it.
If you don't read followups to your own articles, that is your choice,
not mine.
Mark Kramer
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>The place the B8MB looks for the discussion is here, not news.groups.
This IS news.groups. At least, that's where I read your article. Do you
not know where you post?
>You are free to post there, but I suspect you will not get a great
>reception, as I think you have already discovered.
Yes, he won't, because those who actually care about Usenet still read
and post here, and they realize that "they will come" is untrue, that
web boards are inherently incompatible with unmoderated Usenet groups,
and that web board users typically object to the influx of Usenet and
vice versa.
Bad ideas deserve less than great reception.
Mark Kramer
Son of Serpent Esq <jun...@tioat.net> wrote:
>Oh, and can someone explain to me what the difference is between a
>moderated usenet newsgroup and a mailing list? Please.
Moderated Usenet newsgroup articles are transported around the world to
news servers irrespective of the interest in that topic, made available
to readers with no means of knowing who is reading. I.e., the messages
consume bandwidth even when nobody wants to read them.
Mailing lists messages are sent to specific users at their request from
a central server, passing through only those servers required to process
that email. The mailing list operator has a list of email addresses to
which messages are sent, and so has some control over who gets to read.
Bandwidth is used only where it is requested.
Adam H. Kerman
I've said nothing of the kind, and don't give me that "if what you say
is true" nonsense. You should be well aware of this from your own long
experience using Usenet which servers create new Big 8 groups when the
initial newgroup message is sent (or the next checkgroups) and which don't.
There are some commercial servers supporting a large user base in the
latter category. There are servers supporting smaller numbers of users
that will not create groups in any hierarchy lacking a user request. This
is all well known to you.
>>The only consideration should be proper group naming based on the names
>>of groups for related topics.
>What about justification?
Don't go off on a tangent. You put a question to Brian about why not
just advise proponents to propose alt groups. That is a question about
naming the group, not a discussion of justification.
>>Is there something I've stated that you have disagreed with at all
>>during the last several years?
>Heh, was that a typo?
Specific to what I wrote in that message... for ghod's sake, dvus.
>Of course, that was in alt, over here I disagree with almost every sentence
>you post because almost every one you direct to a "squirrel" as you've
>labeled them, is laced with accusations of lying and/or being an asshole.
Only when a squirrel is lying or being an asshole, but that's limited to
Steve. I must observe he's been behaving of late.
>You simply can't win a civilized debate when you resort to half-truths, ad
>hominem and misdirection.
It's funny how you frequently throw out accusations without making them
specific to a particular instance, and if I really had done what you
say, it's really funny how you kept silent.
One assumes you do these things because you cannot back up what you say,
so wouldn't that make it a PKB?
It's especially funny how you start with the assumption that the debate
has been civilized when it began. I didn't make anybody part of "the
opposition". It was a role they put me into. That reminds me: I had
better take down my Web site o haet listing all of my enemies... Damn,
that's right. I don't have one.
dvus, if you've made a complete break with me on configging issues, just
say so. Be honest for once in this "civilized debate".
>Look at PJR's posts, he's as unhappy with the current situation as you and
>others but he keeps his complaints and accusations based on demonstrable
>facts and the ad hominem to a minimum. People aren't immediately branded
>as "Bambi lovers" or whatever the second they disagree with a negative
>statement about how things are done and he keeps a little humor in there
>for comic relief.
Isn't that special. Again, can you point to an example of "people
immediately being branded as Bambi lovers"?
>Me, I try to call things as I see 'em. I'm certainly not infallible by a
>long shot, but I try not to do more than offer an opinion if I'm not sure
>of all the facts. I've disagreed with the Board and said so but that
>doesn't seem to be good enough for you and others, either one must be a
>sworn enemy of anything the board stands for or one is a traitor to the
>cause. That attitude simply *sucks*.
I've said as little as possible to you in the last year or so, since you,
er, have been "trying not to do more than offer an opinion when you've
not been sure of all the facts". I blame your insufferable behavior for
driving Mike away. Thanks ever so for that, dvus.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
>>>newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's?
>>When the Big-8 Management Board was created, we made some changes in
>>the way newsgroup management was carried out. Sadly, some folks
>>wanted to go back the old ways and take pretty much every chance to
>>make the point.
>Well, that only applies to Wayne Brown, strictly speaking. Others
>critical of the board usually have specific (imaginary or real)
>grievances in mind.
I am not on record as being a supporter of the prior system, which
Thomas appears to be suggesting, not Aatu.
>>Sadly, sometimes they flame the proponent, i.e. you, in some
>>mistaken belief that they are doing "the right thing".
>Yes, sometimes people do get flamed on Usenet. It is quite unnecessary
>to drag proponents into general Big-8 policy fights. Unless the issue
>comes up, the prudent course of action would surely be to simply set
>any quarrels aside and just discuss the proposal. Until and unless
>news.groups becomes too toxic to bear in context of the particular
>proposal in question trying to move the discussion either to
>news.groups.proposals or news.groups is bound to involve the proponent
>in all sorts of irrelevant fighting. In case of this proposal, I find
>Adam's behaviour, and his attempt at defusing the situation by
>explicitly asking you set aside any question of where the discussion
>should take place, more appropriate than yours.
Are you trying to ruin my reputation as an asshole and liar, as Jeremy
accused me of being just yesterday?
>Now, all this is of course very easy for me to say, since I'm not at
>the receiving end of the undying hatred and evil flames of the hordes
>of the anti-board (TINAB). Yet, I again futilely suggest you try and
>keep your calm.
Did you miss the sign up sheet?
Adam H. Kerman
For those who haven't followed in comp.lang.lisp, one user brought up
the idea of gating between Usenet and the Web board in which newLISP is
discussed. Several Board members then attached this baggage to the
proposal we are discussing. None of this was the proponent's doing.
Aatu Koskensilta
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> writes:
> Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
>> Now, all this is of course very easy for me to say, since I'm not
>> at the receiving end of the undying hatred and evil flames of the
>> hordes of the anti-board (TINAB). Yet, I again futilely suggest you
>> try and keep your calm.
>
> Did you miss the sign up sheet?
I mentioned the anti-board only to rile Brian.
Aatu Koskensilta
> According to Google Groups, this is the worst, the absolute worst
> justified proposal under Bambi. 7 mere mentions of the topic on
> Usenet!
What are you counting as a mention of the topic on Usenet? Independent
threads? My recollection, which a quick Google seems to verify, is
that the greatness or not of newLISP was the subject of some debate
recently, in tens of messages on comp.lang.lisp, and that random
questions about newLISP -- or, mainly about whether questions about
newLISP are on-topic, and queries asking what newLISP is supposed to
be about -- have cropped up now and then in the past years.
Adam H. Kerman
>>According to Google Groups, this is the worst, the absolute worst
>>justified proposal under Bambi. 7 mere mentions of the topic on
>>Usenet!
>What are you counting as a mention of the topic on Usenet? Independent
>threads? My recollection, which a quick Google seems to verify, is
>that the greatness or not of newLISP was the subject of some debate
>recently, in tens of messages on comp.lang.lisp, and that random
>questions about newLISP -- or, mainly about whether questions about
>newLISP are on-topic, and queries asking what newLISP is supposed to
>be about -- have cropped up now and then in the past years.
I performed a search the day the RFD was posted. Google Groups turned up
7 articles with newLISP in them in the last 90 days. There are probably
other articles missed by Google Groups, which has been just awful of
late. The debate you are speaking of (I know which thread it is) seems
to have began after the RFD was posted when I did a later Google Groups
search. That was the first time I'd noticed the proponent posting about
the topic on Usenet, other than in RFD discussion.
I just don't recall that any of the It's Obvious! groups (that weren't
specifically redundant of alt groups) were for topics so little
discussed on Usenet.
Adam H. Kerman
dvus
The "If what you say were true" was in reference to your statement that
"they don't give a damn about acceptance of their own newgroup
messages", not about the number of servers that honor them.
> don't. There are some commercial servers supporting a large user base in
> the latter category. There are servers supporting smaller numbers of
> users that will not create groups in any hierarchy lacking a user
> request. This is all well known to you.
It's irrelevant to my point. The Board's "power", if any, resides in the
use of the signed key. Without it, the Big-8 is just alt.
>>>The only consideration should be proper group naming based on the names
>>>of groups for related topics.
>
>>What about justification?
>
> Don't go off on a tangent. You put a question to Brian about why not
> just advise proponents to propose alt groups. That is a question about
> naming the group, not a discussion of justification.
WTF are you talking about? You stated the only consideration should be
proper naming and I ask about justification and you accuse me of going off
on a tangent. Is that not another consideration for a proposed new group? I
feel like I'm talking to the Wizard of Oz and his famous "Pay no attention
to that man behind the curtain"!
>>>Is there something I've stated that you have disagreed with at all
>>>during the last several years?
>
>>Heh, was that a typo?
>
> Specific to what I wrote in that message... for ghod's sake, dvus.
>
>>Of course, that was in alt, over here I disagree with almost every
>>sentence you post because almost every one you direct to a "squirrel" as
>>you've labeled them, is laced with accusations of lying and/or being an
>>asshole.
>
> Only when a squirrel is lying or being an asshole, but that's limited to
> Steve. I must observe he's been behaving of late.
>
>>You simply can't win a civilized debate when you resort to half-truths,
>>ad hominem and misdirection.
>
> It's funny how you frequently throw out accusations without making them
> specific to a particular instance, and if I really had done what you
> say, it's really funny how you kept silent.
To be honest, I've really tried to keep my big mouth shut during most of
this, even when I felt I should speak up because I knew the rancour in here
had gone beyond the possibility of a civilized debate. You are now
resorting to the "give me cites" ploy so we can descend into interminable,
unending arguments about what was meant and why so-and-so really *was* an
asshole or whatever, but I just don't have the energy I used to. If you
want to deny calling people liars and "goddam assholes" then fine, maybe
someone else will be curious enough to look them all up.
> One assumes you do these things because you cannot back up what you say,
> so wouldn't that make it a PKB?
Assume whatever you want, you know what you posted and so do I. If anyone
cares to look it up that's fine, my opinion won't change.
> It's especially funny how you start with the assumption that the debate
> has been civilized when it began.
Why would that be relevant to anything?
> I didn't make anybody part of "the
> opposition". It was a role they put me into. That reminds me: I had
> better take down my Web site o haet listing all of my enemies... Damn,
> that's right. I don't have one.
Nor do I. You seem to be arguing with someone else here.
> dvus, if you've made a complete break with me on configging issues, just
> say so. Be honest for once in this "civilized debate".
What in the world are you talking about? I have *never* once lied about
anything in this discussion nor insinuated any sort of "break" with you on
configging issues. I've never made a secret of my disagreement with some of
your methods, but never with your facts. Really, that's mostly what I take
issue with in here, the fact that people can't discuss the situation
without calling others insulting names.
>>Look at PJR's posts, he's as unhappy with the current situation as you
>>and others but he keeps his complaints and accusations based on
>>demonstrable facts and the ad hominem to a minimum. People aren't
>>immediately branded as "Bambi lovers" or whatever the second they
>>disagree with a negative statement about how things are done and he
>>keeps a little humor in there for comic relief.
>
> Isn't that special. Again, can you point to an example of "people
> immediately being branded as Bambi lovers"?
Again with the "give me cites" so I can argue those into the ground. Are
you honestly saying no one's been branded as a Bambi sympathizer for
disagreeing with their detractors? Kramer tried to explain that he
disagreed with one little point the haters had presented and got handed his
head. Even though he agreed with them in principle!
>>Me, I try to call things as I see 'em. I'm certainly not infallible by a
>>long shot, but I try not to do more than offer an opinion if I'm not sure
>>of all the facts. I've disagreed with the Board and said so but that
>>doesn't seem to be good enough for you and others, either one must be a
>>sworn enemy of anything the board stands for or one is a traitor to the
>>cause. That attitude simply *sucks*.
>
> I've said as little as possible to you in the last year or so, since you,
> er, have been "trying not to do more than offer an opinion when you've
> not been sure of all the facts". I blame your insufferable behavior for
> driving Mike away. Thanks ever so for that, dvus.
I'd like Mike to verify that *I* drove him away. If it were true I'd
apologize, but did it ever occur to you that *you* may have contributed to
his departure as well? Of course not, it's easier to just accuse someone
else.
--
dvus
Adam H. Kerman
They've spent far more time bitching at me about how unacceptable my RFD
was to them than they have improving acceptance of control messages.
>>don't. There are some commercial servers supporting a large user base in
>>the latter category. There are servers supporting smaller numbers of
>>users that will not create groups in any hierarchy lacking a user
>>request. This is all well known to you.
>It's irrelevant to my point. The Board's "power", if any, resides in the
>use of the signed key. Without it, the Big-8 is just alt.
That's simply not true. Hierarchy administration does not require PGP
signing, which is useful merely for authentication, not for establishing
merit. If a server doesn't care to implement recognition of pgp signed
control messages, nothing prevents it from accepting them anyway.
>>>You simply can't win a civilized debate when you resort to half-truths,
>>>ad hominem and misdirection.
>>It's funny how you frequently throw out accusations without making them
>>specific to a particular instance, and if I really had done what you
>>say, it's really funny how you kept silent.
>To be honest, I've really tried to keep my big mouth shut during most of
>this, even when I felt I should speak up because I knew the rancour in here
>had gone beyond the possibility of a civilized debate. You are now
>resorting to the "give me cites" ploy so we can descend into interminable,
>unending arguments about what was meant and why so-and-so really *was* an
>asshole or whatever, but I just don't have the energy I used to. If you
>want to deny calling people liars and "goddam assholes" then fine, maybe
>someone else will be curious enough to look them all up.
I didn't deny it. I objected to your accusation of half truths, ad
hominem, and misdirection. If I posted a half truth for the purpose of
misdirection, I'd expect to be called on it. As you never have, I
suggest you withdraw the unfounded accusation.
The thing is, your accusations are always unfounded. They are never
specific to a particular message you claim offends decent discussion.
>>It's especially funny how you start with the assumption that the debate
>>has been civilized when it began.
>Why would that be relevant to anything?
If it never was civilized, then I couldn't possibly have ruined it.
>>I didn't make anybody part of "the
>>opposition". It was a role they put me into. That reminds me: I had
>>better take down my Web site o haet listing all of my enemies... Damn,
>>that's right. I don't have one.
>Nor do I. You seem to be arguing with someone else here.
It's just hard to see myself as anywhere close to the biggest asshole
around here. Yet I'm the one you accuse.
btw, you began this line of attack. Pointing out your absense of basis
is merely pointing out the obvious, hardly an attack. I wonder if you
can explain the difference between a baseless accusation and an ad
hominem attack, just so I'm clear on why you're not doing exactly what
you have been accusing me of.
>>dvus, if you've made a complete break with me on configging issues, just
>>say so. Be honest for once in this "civilized debate".
>What in the world are you talking about? I have *never* once lied about
>anything in this discussion nor insinuated any sort of "break" with you on
>configging issues. I've never made a secret of my disagreement with some of
>your methods, but never with your facts. Really, that's mostly what I take
>issue with in here, the fact that people can't discuss the situation
>without calling others insulting names.
I tend to react when I'm accused or attacked. So what? By that point,
the thread is no longer pleasant and I'm not in the mood to be cheery.
It's the way Usenet is.
>>>Look at PJR's posts, he's as unhappy with the current situation as you
>>>and others but he keeps his complaints and accusations based on
>>>demonstrable facts and the ad hominem to a minimum. People aren't
>>>immediately branded as "Bambi lovers" or whatever the second they
>>>disagree with a negative statement about how things are done and he
>>>keeps a little humor in there for comic relief.
>>Isn't that special. Again, can you point to an example of "people
>>immediately being branded as Bambi lovers"?
>Again with the "give me cites" so I can argue those into the ground.
And I'll keep asking until you provide a basis. If you have no basis,
then you've made a baseless accusation.
What exactly is honest about your attack?
>Are you honestly saying no one's been branded as a Bambi sympathizer for
>disagreeing with their detractors?
No, I'm honestly saying no one was branded as such "immediately".
>Kramer tried to explain that he disagreed with one little point the
>haters had presented and got handed his head.
Unbelievable. Mark Kramer is far more obnoxious than I am. He enjoys
debating tiny points, beating his opponent over the head about tiny
points, while missing the big picture.
>Even though he agreed with them in principle!
Gosh, dvus, how can you fail to notice that Kramer enjoys pushing
people's buttons? It's like you don't read this newsgroup.
>>>Me, I try to call things as I see 'em. I'm certainly not infallible by a
>>>long shot, but I try not to do more than offer an opinion if I'm not sure
>>>of all the facts. I've disagreed with the Board and said so but that
>>>doesn't seem to be good enough for you and others, either one must be a
>>>sworn enemy of anything the board stands for or one is a traitor to the
>>>cause. That attitude simply *sucks*.
>>I've said as little as possible to you in the last year or so, since you,
>>er, have been "trying not to do more than offer an opinion when you've
>>not been sure of all the facts". I blame your insufferable behavior for
>>driving Mike away. Thanks ever so for that, dvus.
>I'd like Mike to verify that *I* drove him away. If it were true I'd
>apologize, but did it ever occur to you that *you* may have contributed to
>his departure as well?
It's impossible, because I didn't interfere in your little exchange of
flames with Brian.
>Of course not, it's easier to just accuse someone else.
It's easiest to make an accusation, then complain when someone demands
you provide a basis for it. But you're always innocent.
Peter J Ross
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But this isn't about you (sing.), because you (sing.) *do* read at
>> least some of the discussion of proposals in news.groups. The problem
>> is with you (plur.), and the absurd official policy of not reading RFD
>> discussion where the discussion actually takes place.
>
> There is no such policy, and you know it.
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:creation#discussing_the_rfd>
===[begin_verbatim_text]==============================================
Do I have to discuss my RFD in news.groups.proposals?
* Yes. Proponents must follow the discussion in n.g.p and make a
reasonable case for their RFD.
* Proponents may, at their discretion, discuss the proposal in other
newsgroups.
* When discussing the RFD in other groups, proponents should take care
to see that their remarks and answers to significant questions appear
in n.g.p as well. The definitive discussion of the proposal takes
place in news.groups.proposals. Neither the board nor other interested
parties should be expected to trawl Usenet looking for fragments of
the discussion.
===[end_verbatim_text]================================================
>> That's also your fault, not mine. When I want to discuss a topic on
>> Usenet, I read the group where the topic is discussed, not the group
>> where I think it *ought* to be discussed. I find it strange that
>> anybody would choose to do otherwise.
>
> Unfortunately, what discussion there is here is dominated by a small
> number of assholes and liars.
Please name names. Please also give examples of the lies that have
been written about the comp.lang.lisp.newlisp proposal.
> I sometimes choose to wade through it
> to find the rare gem where you (for example) say something useful.
I sometimes choose to wade through news.groups.proposals. I don't see
much there that's useful, but at least the clueless Freyburger is one
of Usenet's funniest Google Groupers.
Howver, proponents *should* read news.groups.proposals until you
(plur.) come to your senses and remove it. Occasionally they may find
a useful suggestion there.
> I would never advise a proponent to set foot in this group. Some do,
> of course, but the experience is generally so unpleasant that I would
> not wish it upon anyone. (This time seems to be an exception.)
Presumably last time and the time before that were also exceptions,
not to mention all the other times when pleasant discussion of RFDs
has taken place.
Nevertheless, even if there were no pleasant discussion of RFDs here,
unpleasant discussion would be better than no significant amount of
discussion at all, which is what you (plur.) are offering.
> This group is basically the far-gone lunatic fringe;
Again, name names. Are the Bambies who read and participate here part
of the far-gone lunatic fringe? Or does the far-gone lunatic fringe
comprise only those who care enough about Usenet to discuss RFDs in
more detail than the Bambies ever offer?
> on the whole it's not
> representative of anything that matters, and the views one would get
> from reading the group without already knowing what's what would be
> worse than useless.
Proponents seem not to agree with you. Every change in the second CLLN
RFD was suggested here first or exclusively. Sometimes proponents
adopt fewer suggestions, or none. That's their right. But I don't
think proponents (or you (plur.)) have a right to ignore suggestions
just because you (sing. and plur.) don't like the newsgroup where the
suggestions are most likely to appear.
> I could not tell a proponent to come here for discussion without
> first warning them not to take anything they read here very seriously
> without corroboration, and that wouldn't make much sense as a policy.
So Freyburger's latest rant in NGP should be taken more seriously than
my explanation of why a separate *.announce group was probably a bad
idea?
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross
<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In news.groups on 14 Mar 2009 16:45:54 GMT, Jeremy Nixon
>> <~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Day after day, week after week, of all the crap, and I end up checking less
>> > and less frequently until I'm not looking at the group at all.
>>
>> That's also your fault, not mine. When I want to discuss a topic on
>> Usenet, I read the group where the topic is discussed, not the group
>> where I think it *ought* to be discussed. I find it strange that
>> anybody would choose to do otherwise.
>
> Ah, but news.groups.proposals is special--it is required by hierarchy
> management that one post in ngp if one wants to be certain that the
> hierarchy managers see the post.
I know what your requirement is. My point is that your requirement
should be changed in the light of reality.
> There's no harm in also posting to
> news.groups but often also no point in it. I find it strange that
> anybody would choose to post in a group where his post is unlikely to be
> read.
I'm devastated to learn that my posts are unlikely to be read. I can
only assume that when you and Marty both referred in NGP to
suggestions I made here, you were merely guessing what kind of thing
I'd have been likely to suggest.
> To a large extent, news.groups is to news.groups.proposals as
> rec.music.beatles is to rec.music.beatles.moderated.
I don't read the Beatles groups. Does the resemblance extend to there
being little or nothing of value in the moderated group that hasn't
previously been posted in the unmoderated one?
Peter J Ross
<do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> You simply can't win a civilized debate when you resort to half-truths, ad
> hominem and misdirection. Look at PJR's posts, he's as unhappy with the
> current situation as you and others but he keeps his complaints and
> accusations based on demonstrable facts and the ad hominem to a minimum.
> People aren't immediately branded as "Bambi lovers" or whatever the second
> they disagree with a negative statement about how things are done and he
> keeps a little humor in there for comic relief.
These are just the kind of lies I'd expect from a Bamby-lover like
you!
Son of Serpent Esq
Thanks. I just read the pitfalls by Russ and like wow, so many
reasons not to do it. OK, so why do it? Is there some fantastic
advantage here that I'm missing. Why not use a mailing list?
Reading the comments about which newsgroup to use for the RFDs got
me thinking about this and it just doesn't seem logical to use a
moderated newsgroup to discuss creating a newsgroup unless it is
going to be another moderated newsgroup.
Peter J Ross
In news.groups on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:04:12 -0400, dvus
<do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Now, all this is of course very easy for me to say, since I'm not at
>> the receiving end of the undying hatred and evil flames of the hordes
>> of the anti-board (TINAB). Yet, I again futilely suggest you try and
>> keep your calm.
> [snip]
>
> Amen. Whether by design or otherwise, as time passes, news.groups has
> become a place where useful proposal discussion *can* actually take place
> despite the lack of moderation.
The useful proposal discussion has always continued to take place
here. Its usefulness is diminished by the refusal of some people to
participate, but it's a fact that every RFD that's been discussed at
all has been discussed in greater depth in news.groups than in NGP.
> I, for one, think proponents will be much
> more likely to attempt to brave the tide in here after lurking a while than
> they might have in the past, while admitting I never would have predicted
> such a thing would ever come to pass. Ironically, it's probable that the
> existance of ngp is as responsible for this as anything else.
There have certainly been occasions when I've paid extra attention to
a proposal after reading the unhelpful rubbish that's been posted
about it in NGP. Perhaps it's not such a bad thing that the Bambies
have provided a place where idiots whose nonsense would quickly be
exposed as nonsense here can babble in blissful ignorance that people
are pointing and laughing at them.
Aatu Koskensilta
> I performed a search the day the RFD was posted. Google Groups turned up
> 7 articles with newLISP in them in the last 90 days. There are probably
> other articles missed by Google Groups, which has been just awful of
> late. The debate you are speaking of (I know which thread it is) seems
> to have began after the RFD was posted when I did a later Google Groups
> search. That was the first time I'd noticed the proponent posting about
> the topic on Usenet, other than in RFD discussion.
The first RFD was posted on 10th March, as far as I can tell from
Google. The thread I have in mind, /newLISP is simple, terse, and well
documented/ was started on 18th January, again according to the
ever-so-reliable Google. This accords with what I remember -- that is,
I do seem to recall seeing discussion about the merits or lack thereof
of newLISP before stumbling upon the RFD here. It is of course
possible I'm just mightily confused.
(That I'm not particularly impressed by newLISP and its "simplicity"
is of no relevance whatever, so naturally I have mentioned it in this
literally parenthetical remark.)
dvus
> dvus <do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>dvus <do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>dvus <do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>Brian Mailman wrote:
>>>>>>>Dave Sill wrote:
[Normally I'd trim this post down, but I'd like to avoid the accusations of
"post editing" or "putting words in people's mouths" or "taking statements
out of context" that seem to abound when someone trims. If you like, trim
this down to whatever you feel is appropriate.]
That may be true, I don't know, but a great deal of their "time" spent on
your RFD was in response to your outrage over it's being disapproved for
posting. FWIW, I think they should have just posted the damn thing and let
others decide for themselves what to make of it. The way it is, nobody
really knows what to think except the few who have seen it. (Like me!)
As to improving acceptance of their signed controls, again, I don't know
how hard they've worked to improve that situation, and I suspect you have
no accurate way of knowing either. However, no matter how hard they've
worked it doesn't seem to be nearly enough, at least judging by your
declaration that hardly any servers still honor them. As I said, without
the recognized authority of the PGP key this may as well be alt.
>>>don't. There are some commercial servers supporting a large user base in
>>>the latter category. There are servers supporting smaller numbers of
>>>users that will not create groups in any hierarchy lacking a user
>>>request. This is all well known to you.
>
>>It's irrelevant to my point. The Board's "power", if any, resides in the
>>use of the signed key. Without it, the Big-8 is just alt.
>
> That's simply not true. Hierarchy administration does not require PGP
> signing, which is useful merely for authentication, not for establishing
> merit. If a server doesn't care to implement recognition of pgp signed
> control messages, nothing prevents it from accepting them anyway.
How would they know they were authentic? Sure, the scenario you depict is
possible, but why would an admin choose to do that? Besides, their
acceptance of Board issued controls is the issue, not whether they ignore
the key and accept their cmsgs or accept only signed controls. Is there a
reason you bring up a distinction between the two situations that I'm
missing?
>>>>You simply can't win a civilized debate when you resort to half-truths,
>>>>ad hominem and misdirection.
>
>>>It's funny how you frequently throw out accusations without making them
>>>specific to a particular instance, and if I really had done what you
>>>say, it's really funny how you kept silent.
>
>>To be honest, I've really tried to keep my big mouth shut during most of
>>this, even when I felt I should speak up because I knew the rancour in
>>here had gone beyond the possibility of a civilized debate. You are now
>>resorting to the "give me cites" ploy so we can descend into
>>interminable, unending arguments about what was meant and why so-and-so
>>really *was* an asshole or whatever, but I just don't have the energy I
>>used to. If you want to deny calling people liars and "goddam assholes"
>>then fine, maybe someone else will be curious enough to look them all up.
>
> I didn't deny it. I objected to your accusation of half truths, ad
> hominem, and misdirection. If I posted a half truth for the purpose of
> misdirection, I'd expect to be called on it. As you never have, I
> suggest you withdraw the unfounded accusation.
<sigh...>, tell you what, I'll dog your every post and every time you
stretch the truth or make assumptions based on little more than your
dislike of Board members I'll pop up like a little PITA and call you on it.
In the end you'll hate me and *I'll* be one of the goddam lying assholes,
but the benefit of it all will be all the support you'll get from like
minded individuals who hate the Board and who'll jump in to question every
adjective and adverb. We'll have ng back to being a real mudhole in no
time!
> The thing is, your accusations are always unfounded. They are never
> specific to a particular message you claim offends decent discussion.
It was a general statement about my opinion of the general state of affairs
in here. You're right, I didn't save MIDs and I don't have the energy to
comb through the badly maintained Google archives. I guess the only way one
can make objections to to the atmosphere of the debates is to be like a
"Wayne Brown" and speak up after every post that I feel isn't kosher or
accurate. Maybe knowing someone is hovering over your shoulder will change
your tactics, I don't know. To be honest, I'm not even sure why it bothers
me so much, I half suspect the answer would make you blush.
>>>It's especially funny how you start with the assumption that the debate
>>>has been civilized when it began.
>
>>Why would that be relevant to anything?
>
> If it never was civilized, then I couldn't possibly have ruined it.
I did not say the debate has been civilized, just that certain acts
preclude civility. Saying I started with the "assumption that the debate
has been civilized when it began" is simply untrue and only allows you to
misdirect this discussion.
>>>I didn't make anybody part of "the
>>>opposition". It was a role they put me into. That reminds me: I had
>>>better take down my Web site o haet listing all of my enemies... Damn,
>>>that's right. I don't have one.
>
>>Nor do I. You seem to be arguing with someone else here.
>
> It's just hard to see myself as anywhere close to the biggest asshole
> around here. Yet I'm the one you accuse.
I never called you an asshole, did I? If I did, chalk it up to
over-medication and accept my apology. You just don't get it, do you? No, I
hardly ever bother discussing the really insipid comments by some others in
here because I don't care what they say. Everyone knows their game is to
just cause trouble and get some attention. Ah, screw it, I should probably
just get off Usenet if I let these things bother me, there's hardly a
worthwhile proposal around anymore and even though I think the Board is
trying to figure out ways to make it more acceptable I'm not sure anything
will ever work.
> btw, you began this line of attack. Pointing out your absense of basis
> is merely pointing out the obvious, hardly an attack. I wonder if you
> can explain the difference between a baseless accusation and an ad
> hominem attack, just so I'm clear on why you're not doing exactly what
> you have been accusing me of.
I started out by asking Brian "How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ
from alt proposals? Why not just counsel the proponent to propose there?".
You came in with comments and ended with "If they don't give a damn about
acceptance of their own newgroup messages, why should anyone else?" and I
tried to point out what I felt was the illogic of that statement and the
baseless nature of accusing them of not giving a damn. Now it's turned into
me accusing you of being the rottenest poster in history somehow. Bleah...
>>>dvus, if you've made a complete break with me on configging issues, just
>>>say so. Be honest for once in this "civilized debate".
>
>>What in the world are you talking about? I have *never* once lied about
>>anything in this discussion nor insinuated any sort of "break" with you
>>on configging issues. I've never made a secret of my disagreement with
>>some of your methods, but never with your facts. Really, that's mostly
>>what I take issue with in here, the fact that people can't discuss the
>>situation without calling others insulting names.
>
> I tend to react when I'm accused or attacked. So what? By that point,
> the thread is no longer pleasant and I'm not in the mood to be cheery.
> It's the way Usenet is.
But it's *not* the way configging forums should be, IMHO. That's *exactly*
why they went and made ngp. If ng had been as calm then as it is now I bet
there'd have been a lot more objection to ngp!
>>>>Look at PJR's posts, he's as unhappy with the current situation as you
>>>>and others but he keeps his complaints and accusations based on
>>>>demonstrable facts and the ad hominem to a minimum. People aren't
>>>>immediately branded as "Bambi lovers" or whatever the second they
>>>>disagree with a negative statement about how things are done and he
>>>>keeps a little humor in there for comic relief.
>
>>>Isn't that special. Again, can you point to an example of "people
>>>immediately being branded as Bambi lovers"?
>
>>Again with the "give me cites" so I can argue those into the ground.
>
> And I'll keep asking until you provide a basis. If you have no basis,
> then you've made a baseless accusation.
>
> What exactly is honest about your attack?
I guess just that I'm being as honest as I can. I don't want to go sifting
back through a years worth of posts in here to prove that I have an opinion
about the atmosphere and I don't want to play the "misdirection" games that
I THINK are common. Like I said, if it'll make you happy I'll just point
out things I think are crappy methods as they happen. That'll turn every
thread into a circus and lots of people will be happy as hell.
>>Are you honestly saying no one's been branded as a Bambi sympathizer for
>>disagreeing with their detractors?
>
> No, I'm honestly saying no one was branded as such "immediately".
Ah, yes, the "immediacy" of the accusations are the focal point of the
whole thing. Maybe we could extend this sub-thread and debate it right down
to the millisecond or better and the whole point will be entirely lost in
the details. Christ, when the hell did you start arguing in this manner?
>>Kramer tried to explain that he disagreed with one little point the
>>haters had presented and got handed his head.
>
> Unbelievable. Mark Kramer is far more obnoxious than I am. He enjoys
> debating tiny points, beating his opponent over the head about tiny
> points, while missing the big picture.
>
>>Even though he agreed with them in principle!
>
> Gosh, dvus, how can you fail to notice that Kramer enjoys pushing
> people's buttons? It's like you don't read this newsgroup.
Kramer's actions and motives have *nothing* to do with my point that the
second he disagreed with the Board haters they threw him under the bus even
though he was justified in his opinion in that case.
>>>>Me, I try to call things as I see 'em. I'm certainly not infallible by
>>>>a long shot, but I try not to do more than offer an opinion if I'm not
>>>>sure of all the facts. I've disagreed with the Board and said so but
>>>>that doesn't seem to be good enough for you and others, either one
>>>>must be a sworn enemy of anything the board stands for or one is a
>>>>traitor to the cause. That attitude simply *sucks*.
>
>>>I've said as little as possible to you in the last year or so, since
>>>you, er, have been "trying not to do more than offer an opinion when
>>>you've not been sure of all the facts". I blame your insufferable
>>>behavior for driving Mike away. Thanks ever so for that, dvus.
>
>>I'd like Mike to verify that *I* drove him away. If it were true I'd
>>apologize, but did it ever occur to you that *you* may have contributed
>>to his departure as well?
>
> It's impossible, because I didn't interfere in your little exchange of
> flames with Brian.
The "flames" were one-way and not really that hot. Anyways, this isn't the
place to discuss that, is it..?
>>Of course not, it's easier to just accuse someone else.
>
> It's easiest to make an accusation, then complain when someone demands
> you provide a basis for it. But you're always innocent.
I'm not always right, but I never lie, at least not on purpose. As to the
Mike Klass incident, you're making far more accusations than I. Go and
re-read that whole mess with an open mind and see if you still think the
way you do now about it.
--
dvus
Aatu Koskensilta
> These are just the kind of lies I'd expect from a Bamby-lover like
> you!
In contrast to the kind of lies you'd expect from a Bamby-lover like
me, say?
dvus
> In news.groups on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:30:09 -0400, dvus
> <do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You simply can't win a civilized debate when you resort to half-truths,
>> ad hominem and misdirection. Look at PJR's posts, he's as unhappy with
>> the current situation as you and others but he keeps his complaints and
>> accusations based on demonstrable facts and the ad hominem to a minimum.
>> People aren't immediately branded as "Bambi lovers" or whatever the
>> second they disagree with a negative statement about how things are
>> done and he keeps a little humor in there for comic relief.
>
> These are just the kind of lies I'd expect from a Bamby-lover like
> you!
Heh, yeah, love them Bambys (or is it Bambies?). Y'know, in all this I've
lost track of just who they actually all are anymore and I think I'll try
to keep it that way. When and if I respond to one of their posts it won't
look like I'm licking their boots if I happen to partially agree with
something they say. I wish they'd put Adam on the Board, then when I yell
at him he won't know whether to praise me for disagreeing with the Board or
bitch at me for what I said.
--
dvus
Mark Kramer
Son of Serpent Esq <jun...@tioat.net> wrote:
>Thanks. I just read the pitfalls by Russ and like wow, so many
>reasons not to do it. OK, so why do it? Is there some fantastic
>advantage here that I'm missing. Why not use a mailing list?
There are economies of scale that start to make news more efficient than
email when the numbers of readers is large enough and concentrated enough.
For example, 100 readers at one "ISP" (or site) would have 100 copies
of every email message, while there would only be 1 copy of each news
message.
Further, management of large mailing lists and the centralized bandwidth
is a limitation for some sites. With news, there is no list to manage and
only one copy of a message leaving.
>Reading the comments about which newsgroup to use for the RFDs got
>me thinking about this and it just doesn't seem logical to use a
>moderated newsgroup to discuss creating a newsgroup unless it is
>going to be another moderated newsgroup.
It does limit the range of opinion and voices.
If you are comparing ngp (moderated news) to a mailing list, it is
certainly more reasonable to have a moderated newsgroup compared to
a mailing list, since the readers/users of the newsgroup have a very
high turnover rate and managing the subscriptions to ngp as a mailing
list would be a large task, even if it is fully automated. (Many people
also do not want to divulge email addresses, and a mailing list requires
one.) But this is not to say that moderated news is a better forum than
unmoderated for this task.
Mark Kramer
Isn't the name wrong?
Shouldn't it be comp.lang.lisp.lithppluthpluth? Or lithptharp?
Aatu Koskensilta
> Isn't the name wrong?
>
> Shouldn't it be comp.lang.lisp.lithppluthpluth? Or lithptharp?
Well, Scheme is a LISP but we have comp.lang.scheme. (Those who have
followed comp.lang.lisp will appreciate your nod at Jon Harrop's
direction.)
Kathy Morgan
> In news.groups on Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:54:04 -0900, Kathy Morgan
> <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> I'm devastated to learn that my posts are unlikely to be read. I can
> only assume that when you and Marty both referred in NGP to
> suggestions I made here, you were merely guessing what kind of thing
> I'd have been likely to suggest.
Obviously I do read much of what you post here. However, most posters
here slip in and out of my killfiles and some stay in permanently. I
do, however, read every post in ngp.
> > To a large extent, news.groups is to news.groups.proposals as
> > rec.music.beatles is to rec.music.beatles.moderated.
>
> I don't read the Beatles groups. Does the resemblance extend to there
> being little or nothing of value in the moderated group that hasn't
> previously been posted in the unmoderated one?
I don't read them either. I'm actually just going by what Jim Riley (or
maybe it was Joe Bernstein) reported about them, that the unmoderated
group receives all the rejects from the moderated group. ;-)
--
Kathy
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> dvus <do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>dvus <do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>dvus <do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>Brian Mailman wrote:
>>>>>>>>Dave Sill wrote:
>As to improving acceptance of their signed controls, again, I don't know
>how hard they've worked to improve that situation, and I suspect you have
>no accurate way of knowing either.
We know the results, which suck. Therefore, they haven't done it right.
>However, no matter how hard they've worked it doesn't seem to be nearly
>enough, at least judging by your declaration that hardly any servers
>still honor them. As I said, without the recognized authority of the
>PGP key this may as well be alt.
Again: The servers that honor them don't necessarily recognize the key.
It's not a prerequisite for administering a News server.
>>>>don't. There are some commercial servers supporting a large user base in
>>>>the latter category. There are servers supporting smaller numbers of
>>>>users that will not create groups in any hierarchy lacking a user
>>>>request. This is all well known to you.
>>>It's irrelevant to my point. The Board's "power", if any, resides in the
>>>use of the signed key. Without it, the Big-8 is just alt.
>>That's simply not true. Hierarchy administration does not require PGP
>>signing, which is useful merely for authentication, not for establishing
>>merit. If a server doesn't care to implement recognition of pgp signed
>>control messages, nothing prevents it from accepting them anyway.
>How would they know they were authentic?
You read the newgroup message? You create the group first, then read the
newgroup message later?
>Sure, the scenario you depict is possible, but why would an admin choose
>to do that? Besides, their acceptance of Board issued controls is the
>issue, not whether they ignore the key and accept their cmsgs or accept
>only signed controls. Is there a reason you bring up a distinction
>between the two situations that I'm missing?
Is there a reason you keep bringing up lack of pgp signing as a
distinguishing feature of alt? Nothing prevents alt proponents from signing
their newgroup messages.
Anything is better than the crap you're pulling here.
>>>>It's especially funny how you start with the assumption that the debate
>>>>has been civilized when it began.
>>>Why would that be relevant to anything?
>>If it never was civilized, then I couldn't possibly have ruined it.
>I did not say the debate has been civilized, just that certain acts
>preclude civility.
You're splitting hairs here to pretend you aren't backpedalling.
>Saying I started with the "assumption that the debate has been civilized
>when it began" is simply untrue and only allows you to misdirect this
>discussion.
No, that would be the main issue.
>>>>I didn't make anybody part of "the
>>>>opposition". It was a role they put me into. That reminds me: I had
>>>>better take down my Web site o haet listing all of my enemies... Damn,
>>>>that's right. I don't have one.
>>>Nor do I. You seem to be arguing with someone else here.
>>It's just hard to see myself as anywhere close to the biggest asshole
>>around here. Yet I'm the one you accuse.
>I never called you an asshole, did I?
Your unsubstantiated accusations in this subthread have been directed at me.
>>>>>Look at PJR's posts, he's as unhappy with the current situation as you
>>>>>and others but he keeps his complaints and accusations based on
>>>>>demonstrable facts and the ad hominem to a minimum. People aren't
>>>>>immediately branded as "Bambi lovers" or whatever the second they
>>>>>disagree with a negative statement about how things are done and he
>>>>>keeps a little humor in there for comic relief.
>>>>Isn't that special. Again, can you point to an example of "people
>>>>immediately being branded as Bambi lovers"?
>>>Again with the "give me cites" so I can argue those into the ground.
>>And I'll keep asking until you provide a basis. If you have no basis,
>>then you've made a baseless accusation.
>>What exactly is honest about your attack?
>I guess just that I'm being as honest as I can. I don't want to go sifting
>back through a years worth of posts in here to prove that I have an opinion
>about the atmosphere and I don't want to play the "misdirection" games that
>I THINK are common. Like I said, if it'll make you happy I'll just point
>out things I think are crappy methods as they happen. That'll turn every
>thread into a circus and lots of people will be happy as hell.
Maybe the polite thing to do would be to withdraw every one of your
baseless accusations and apologize, until you are willing to provide a
basis. Just a suggestion, dvus; I don't really expect you to behave.
>>>Of course not, it's easier to just accuse someone else.
>>It's easiest to make an accusation, then complain when someone demands
>>you provide a basis for it. But you're always innocent.
>I'm not always right, but I never lie, at least not on purpose.
What about deliberate ommissions, the sin you are committing here?
>As to the Mike Klass incident, you're making far more accusations than
>I. Go and re-read that whole mess with an open mind and see if you still
>think the way you do now about it.
I read it with an open mind the first time. I didn't participate in it.
Your blame shifting to me is utterly without basis, yes?
Adam H. Kerman
>>I performed a search the day the RFD was posted. Google Groups turned up
>>7 articles with newLISP in them in the last 90 days. There are probably
>>other articles missed by Google Groups, which has been just awful of
>>late. The debate you are speaking of (I know which thread it is) seems
>>to have began after the RFD was posted when I did a later Google Groups
>>search. That was the first time I'd noticed the proponent posting about
>>the topic on Usenet, other than in RFD discussion.
>The first RFD was posted on 10th March, as far as I can tell from Google.
Thanks to the infallible Marty, who allowed at least two versions of the
RFD to be posted without requiring the proponent to correct the revision
history, and then dismissed this error in judgment with a wave of his
hand saying the revision history is irrelevant, I will always be
confused about what was posted when.
>The thread I have in mind, /newLISP is simple, terse, and well
>documented/ was started on 18th January, again according to the
>ever-so-reliable Google.
Honestly, that thread is NOT turning up in an advanced search of Google
Groups. I believe you that it exists. I'll review the LISP newsgroup.
Peter J Ross
<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In news.groups on Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:54:04 -0900, Kathy Morgan
>> <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm devastated to learn that my posts are unlikely to be read. I can
>> only assume that when you and Marty both referred in NGP to
>> suggestions I made here, you were merely guessing what kind of thing
>> I'd have been likely to suggest.
>
> Obviously I do read much of what you post here. However, most posters
> here slip in and out of my killfiles and some stay in permanently.
Nobody is telling you not to use a killfile.
> I do, however, read every post in ngp.
I already know what your reading habits are. I'm advising you to
change them.
>> > To a large extent, news.groups is to news.groups.proposals as
>> > rec.music.beatles is to rec.music.beatles.moderated.
>>
>> I don't read the Beatles groups. Does the resemblance extend to there
>> being little or nothing of value in the moderated group that hasn't
>> previously been posted in the unmoderated one?
>
> I don't read them either. I'm actually just going by what Jim Riley (or
> maybe it was Joe Bernstein) reported about them, that the unmoderated
> group receives all the rejects from the moderated group. ;-)
So there's no parallel at all.
Peter J Ross
<do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In news.groups on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:30:09 -0400, dvus
>> <do...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> You simply can't win a civilized debate when you resort to half-truths,
>>> ad hominem and misdirection. Look at PJR's posts, he's as unhappy with
>>> the current situation as you and others but he keeps his complaints and
>>> accusations based on demonstrable facts and the ad hominem to a minimum.
>>> People aren't immediately branded as "Bambi lovers" or whatever the
>>> second they disagree with a negative statement about how things are
>>> done and he keeps a little humor in there for comic relief.
>>
>> These are just the kind of lies I'd expect from a Bamby-lover like
>> you!
>
> Heh, yeah, love them Bambys (or is it Bambies?).
I write Bamby as the singular and Bambies as the plural. other people
use other variants, though both Treehouse and Squirrel seem to be
standardised.
> Y'know, in all this I've
> lost track of just who they actually all are anymore and I think I'll try
> to keep it that way.
Without looking it up, I couldn't even tell you how many there are.
It's either seven or eight.
> When and if I respond to one of their posts it won't
> look like I'm licking their boots if I happen to partially agree with
> something they say.
At the moment, I'm probably more likely to agree with what they say
than you are, but you're the one who gets all the amusing attention.
Unfair!
> I wish they'd put Adam on the Board,
That would be interesting.
> then when I yell
> at him he won't know whether to praise me for disagreeing with the Board or
> bitch at me for what I said.
Have you considered applying for Board membership yourself? Seriously.
David Bostwick
[...]
>I write Bamby as the singular and Bambies as the plural. other people
>use other variants, though both Treehouse and Squirrel seem to be
>standardised.
>
But standardized isn't.
Peter J Ross
<c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm probably going to vote in favor of it.
>
> Isn't the name wrong?
The name *must* be wrong, since I'm the one who suggested it, and I'm
notorious for being "nothing but an abusive asshole".
(I hope Timmy never has the decency to retract that claim, which
remains the funniest thing ever written about me by a news.groupie.)
> Shouldn't it be comp.lang.lisp.lithppluthpluth? Or lithptharp?
comp.lang.vithual-lithp?
Adam H. Kerman
>[...]
>>I write Bamby as the singular and Bambies as the plural. other people
>>use other variants, though both Treehouse and Squirrel seem to be
>>standardised.
>But standardized isn't.
Heh!
Adam H. Kerman
>>Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>>> I'm probably going to vote in favor of it.
>>Isn't the name wrong?
>The name *must* be wrong, since I'm the one who suggested it, and I'm
>notorious for being "nothing but an abusive asshole".
This isn't true. You're also a liar!
Aratzio
Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> These are just the kind of lies I'd expect from a Bamby-lover like
>> you!
>
>In contrast to the kind of lies you'd expect from a Bamby-lover like
>me, say?
ITYM Baby Lover kitten raper.
Peter J Ross
Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
No, I don't become a liar till Sunday, when I take over from you until
the end of the month, after which it will be Brian's turn.
Btw, if the proponent is still reading: you're not expected to pay
much attention to the parts of the discussion where news.groupies are
having off-topic fun with each other. But we *like* having fun, and
you're welcome to join in.)
Peter J Ross
<david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:
I'm glad I'm not the only one with a sense of humo\(u\|\)r.
(David Ritz, whom I'm copying, writes "humou?r", but I think my regex
is better because it has three pretty escapes in it. But maybe I
should insert a few extra backslashes in a LISP thread?)
David Bostwick
>In news.groups on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:58:52 +0000 (UTC), Adam H.
>Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Mark Kramer <c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>>Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm probably going to vote in favor of it.
>>
>>>>Isn't the name wrong?
>>
>>>The name *must* be wrong, since I'm the one who suggested it, and I'm
>>>notorious for being "nothing but an abusive asshole".
>>
>> This isn't true. You're also a liar!
>
>No, I don't become a liar till Sunday, when I take over from you until
>the end of the month, after which it will be Brian's turn.
>
>Btw, if the proponent is still reading: you're not expected to pay
>much attention to the parts of the discussion where news.groupies are
>having off-topic fun with each other. But we *like* having fun, and
>you're welcome to join in.)
>
Unmatched parenthesis. 10 points off.
Aatu Koskensilta
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:31:55 +0200, in the land of news.groups, Aatu
> Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>>In contrast to the kind of lies you'd expect from a Bamby-lover like
>>me, say?
>
> ITYM Baby Lover kitten raper.
Think what you want. I've left the kittens alone as of late, fearful
of the wrath of 4chan and their awe-inspiring lolcats.
Jeremy Nixon
>> There is no such policy, and you know it.
>
> <http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:creation#discussing_the_rfd>
Okay, now, instead of quoting the part that doesn't have a policy of not
reading discussion in news.groups, maybe you could point out where there
*is* such a policy?
>> I would never advise a proponent to set foot in this group. Some do,
>> of course, but the experience is generally so unpleasant that I would
>> not wish it upon anyone. (This time seems to be an exception.)
>
> Presumably last time and the time before that were also exceptions,
> not to mention all the other times when pleasant discussion of RFDs
> has taken place.
This one is going downhill, so I may have to adjust the above assessment.
>> This group is basically the far-gone lunatic fringe;
>
> Again, name names. Are the Bambies who read and participate here part
> of the far-gone lunatic fringe? Or does the far-gone lunatic fringe
> comprise only those who care enough about Usenet to discuss RFDs in
> more detail than the Bambies ever offer?
Well, I haven't seen Bob Officer around here lately. Without him, let's
be honest: if you left this group I might stop bothering with it.
>> on the whole it's not representative of anything that matters, and the
>> views one would get from reading the group without already knowing
>> what's what would be worse than useless.
>
> Proponents seem not to agree with you. Every change in the second CLLN
> RFD was suggested here first or exclusively. Sometimes proponents
> adopt fewer suggestions, or none. That's their right. But I don't
> think proponents (or you (plur.)) have a right to ignore suggestions
> just because you (sing. and plur.) don't like the newsgroup where the
> suggestions are most likely to appear.
The problem is that much of what is posted here isn't representative of
anything more than the tiny handful of extremists who post it. They try
to *sound* like they speak for the populace, but they very much do not.
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board
Adam H. Kerman
>>>I would never advise a proponent to set foot in this group. Some do,
>>>of course, but the experience is generally so unpleasant that I would
>>>not wish it upon anyone. (This time seems to be an exception.)
>>Presumably last time and the time before that were also exceptions,
>>not to mention all the other times when pleasant discussion of RFDs
>>has taken place.
>This one is going downhill, so I may have to adjust the above assessment.
Thanks very much for that, Jeremy.
You were the first one to call unnamed persons liars and assholes.
Perhaps you could look to your own behavior?
Son of Serpent Esq
> In article <gpo6q4$pna$1...@tioat.net>,
> Son of Serpent Esq <jun...@tioat.net> wrote:
>>Thanks. I just read the pitfalls by Russ and like wow, so many
>>reasons not to do it. OK, so why do it? Is there some fantastic
>>advantage here that I'm missing. Why not use a mailing list?
>
> There are economies of scale that start to make news more efficient than
> email when the numbers of readers is large enough and concentrated enough.
> For example, 100 readers at one "ISP" (or site) would have 100 copies
> of every email message, while there would only be 1 copy of each news
> message.
>
> Further, management of large mailing lists and the centralized bandwidth
> is a limitation for some sites. With news, there is no list to manage and
> only one copy of a message leaving.
Makes sense. I'm looking at this from the news side but I have
wondered why there isn't a system to network sites on the web like
there is with usenet. The only thing that I know of that even comes
close to this is with blog trackbacks. Works great for spam; should
work for transfering messages between blogs or forums and even
replace the mailing list system. But it's not really being used.
>>Reading the comments about which newsgroup to use for the RFDs got
>>me thinking about this and it just doesn't seem logical to use a
>>moderated newsgroup to discuss creating a newsgroup unless it is
>>going to be another moderated newsgroup.
>
> It does limit the range of opinion and voices.
>
> If you are comparing ngp (moderated news) to a mailing list, it is
> certainly more reasonable to have a moderated newsgroup compared to
> a mailing list, since the readers/users of the newsgroup have a very
> high turnover rate and managing the subscriptions to ngp as a mailing
> list would be a large task, even if it is fully automated. (Many people
> also do not want to divulge email addresses, and a mailing list requires
> one.) But this is not to say that moderated news is a better forum than
> unmoderated for this task.
I got the impression that some members of the board were concerned
about the noise in the unmoderated newsgroup and this just struck me
as odd because most groups are not moderated and requests for new
newsgroups should be coming from people who have a little experience
with usenet and can deal with the background noise.
Thanks for the technical side of this. The problem with turnover is
something to consider with the way mailing lists are operated now.
These technical problems can all be solved I would think... but a
topic we might not want to get into here.
Brian Mailman
> Brian Mailman wrote:
>>> How then will proposals in the Big-8 differ from alt
>>> proposals?...
>>
>> We all get quite tired of "bringing you up to speed" on things you
>
> Are all the folks in "we all" as condescending as you seem to have
> become?
You seem to enjoy using the word "condescending" a lot. Condescending
would be taking widdle dvus by the hand and spoon feeding him. Instead,
I simply tell you where to find the information you so obviously lack.
[...]
>>> Is it *so* important to you to undermine what you find to be a
>>> disagreeable process in the Big-8 that you would advise a
>>> proponent to take this sort of action?
>>
>> Is it so important for you to constantly and continuously
>> mischaracterize my words in order for you to be a Secret Squirrel?
>> You know the below, but for the onlookers we'll give you yet
>> another refresher course:
>>
>> I'm not undermining anything. I'm simply telling them the facts.
>> Which are:
>>
>> 1. The bambies have made themselves totally irrelevant.
NOTE, ORIGINAL TEXT FROM POST-EDITING RESTORED:
1a. There's no perceivable difference any more between alt.*
creation and Big8 creation, other than somewhat more servers
automatically honor the bambies' advisories.
2. Anyone wishing a Big8 group can send their own advisory and start
work on getting the group propagated.
> In your view.
You need to read to the links in William Bagwell's .sig to find out how
alt.* groups work. It's obvious that yet again, you've been asleep for
several years and someone's been using your keyboard.
B/
Adam H. Kerman
>I also pointed that out to him but apparently he ignored my comments.
>Typical.
We're kill filed! I can't wait till Jeremy puts us on a Web site. I
wonder if it will be as good as Tim's.